BLIND PEOPLE CAN DO ANYTHING

BUT

NOT IN MY COMPANY

EMPLOYER ATTITUDES TOWARDS EMPLOYING BLIND

AND VISION-IMPAIRED PEOPLE

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

degree of

Master of Business Studies

At Massey University, Albany, New Zealand

by

Christine Inglis

2005

Approved by _________________________________________________Chairman of Supervisory Committee

Reviewer_________________________________________

Reviewer_________________________________________

Reviewer_________________________________________

Programme Authorised to Offer Degree_______________________________________________

Date _________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT

Previous international research has shown blind and vision-

impaired people to be in the less favoured groups of employees

employers are willing to hire. None of the research has addressed

why this is the case.

The present study was undertaken firstly to see if in New Zealand

also, blind and vision-impaired people were less favoured in

comparison with other disability groups as potential employees; and

secondly, to determine employer attitudes and perceptions towards

employing blind people, and how or why these attitudes and

perceptions influence employers to overlook the blind and vision-

impaired when employing staff.

One hundred and two employers (sample 200) participated in a

telephone survey and, of those, six were interviewed again in an in-

depth face-to-face interview. A combination of attitudinal and

perception survey instruments were used.

The research found participants had mainly favourable attitudes

towards blind and vision-impaired people. However, in total

contrast, blind and vision-impaired people (alongside those with

moderate to severe intellectual disabilities) were regarded the least

suitable or least employable for positions most and second most

often available in firms across all industries.

The results were congruent with earlier findings (Gilbride,

Stensrud, Ehlers, Evans & Peterson, 2000) in that of all of the

disability groups, blindness and persons with moderate or severe

(mental retardation) intellectual handicap were perceived as the

hardest to employ in comparison with other disability groups.

Lastly, this report comments on how potential hiring practices

(employers’ potential behaviour) can be changed to better match

their apparent positive attitudes towards blind and vision-impaired

people. A range of recommendations are made such as the need for

education programmes in schools, media campaigns and cultivating

positive media relationships, workplace training and education,

employer mentoring programmes, the development of government

policies and strategies and the need for work experience

programmes.

CONTENTS

Abstract...................................................................................................iContents..................................................................................................iList of figures.........................................................................................iiiList of tables...........................................................................................ivAcknowledgements.................................................................................vDedication..............................................................................................viGlossary................................................................................................viiChapter 1: Introduction..........................................................................1

Background to the study....................................................................1Overview.......................................................................................1Blind people in employment..........................................................2Definition of blind and vision-impaired..........................................2Employment barriers.....................................................................3Attitudes definition........................................................................4The effect of attitudes on people with disabilities.........................4Problem statement........................................................................5Researcher’s interest....................................................................5

Research objectives...........................................................................6Purpose of study............................................................................6Research questions.......................................................................6

Research sequence............................................................................7Chapter 2: Review of the literature........................................................9

Introduction.......................................................................................9Attitudes, development and theory....................................................9Employer attitudes...........................................................................11Attitudes towards individuals with disabilities.................................12

Global attitudes...........................................................................12Individual attitudes.....................................................................14

Employment barriers and employer attitudes towards blind people16Changing attitudes...........................................................................19Summary..........................................................................................21Gaps.................................................................................................21

Chapter 3: Methodology.......................................................................23Measurement of employer attitudes towards employing people with disabilities........................................................................................23Selection of subjects........................................................................25Subject selection procedure.............................................................25Instrumentation...............................................................................26

Employer Hiring Practices and Perceptions Survey (EHPPS).....26Modified Attitudes Scale (ATDP and AB).....................................27Demographic questions...............................................................27

Final instrument...............................................................................28Collection of data.............................................................................29

Telephone surveys.......................................................................29Personal interviews.....................................................................30

Hypotheses......................................................................................30

i

Analysis of data................................................................................31

ii

Chapter 4: Findings..............................................................................32Overview of findings........................................................................32Participant and company description/demographics.......................32

Individual participant’s description.............................................32Business/company description....................................................34Experiences of hiring employees with disabilities.......................36

Employer Hiring Practices and Perceptions Survey (EHPP)............38Employability ratings for jobs most and second most frequently filled......................................................................38Disabilities perceived by employers to be more employable than others.............................................................................39Comparisons between disability groups.................................40What types of disabilities are preferred for which jobs..........42Employment potential of blind and vision-impaired people....43

Attitudes Towards Blind Persons (ATBP) scale................................44The influence of variables on attitude.........................................46

Hypotheses findings.........................................................................48Summary..........................................................................................49

Chapter 5: Discussion...........................................................................50Overview of problem........................................................................50Discussion on findings......................................................................52

Employer attitudes towards blind and vision-impaired people....52The effects of variables on employer attitudes and perceptions. 54How attitudes are formed – employers’ view..............................55The dichotomy between employer hiring practices and attitudes....................................................................................................56Explaining employers’ attitudes..................................................57Employment barriers...................................................................58Changing attitudes -- a way forward...........................................61

Limitations.......................................................................................62Sample size.................................................................................62Research instrument...................................................................62Sample selection.........................................................................63Potential response bias...............................................................63

Conclusions and implications of this study......................................64Recommendations............................................................................65Future research questions...............................................................68Summary..........................................................................................69

References............................................................................................71Appendices...........................................................................................78Appendix A: Questionnaire...................................................................79Appendix B: Consent forms and ethics statement.................................85Appendix C: Research sampling...........................................................90Appendix D: Inferential and graphical results......................................95

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Page1. Gender of respondents................................................33

2. Ethnicity of respondents.............................................34

3. Age of respondents.....................................................34

4. Educational level of respondents................................35

5. Business size...............................................................35

6. Percentage of respondents who have previously hired

employees with disabilities.........................................37

7. Number of disabled staff hired by respondents who have

previously hired disabled staff....................................37

8. Respondents’ satisfaction with having hired an employee

with a disability...........................................................38

9. Number of respondents who have made modifications

for employees with disabilities....................................38

10. Employers’ employability rating for each disability type 41

11.Employers’ rating of blind people’s employability by job category

....................................................................................44

12.Employers’ attitudes towards blind people by frequency of

respondent responses.................................................46

13.Employers’ attitudes towards blind people by respondent 46

14...............Respondents score on each attitude scale item 47

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Number

1. Australian & New Zealand Standard Industry Classification

of businesses in the research sample..........................36

2. Disability employability ratings paired samples test for jobs 1 and

2..................................................................................40

3. Test of homogeneity of variances................................42

4. ANOVA to test hypothesis of mean disability score

between disability groups and within groups .............42

5. Dunnett T3 post hoc test, testing blindness against all

other disabilities..........................................................43

6. Influence of variables on attitude................................48

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Firstly I would like to acknowledge and thank all of those people who

have stood by me during the whole process of this thesis; without them

I would have struggled to complete it.

I wish to express sincere appreciation to Drs Janet Sayers and Margot

Edwards for their assistance in the preparation of this manuscript and

most particularly for their patience and encouragement of this part-

time working student trying to complete her thesis while managing all

of the other competing demands. In addition, special thanks to Paula

Daye and the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind (RNZFB) for

their practical support, advice and encouragement during the research

and write-up phases of this thesis. To Dr Dennis Gilbride my sincerest

thanks for giving permission to use the Employer Hiring Practices and

Perceptions Survey (EHPPS). Thanks also to the RNZFB staff members

for their valuable input and practical assistance. In particular I wish to

thank Lucy Mackintosh for her assistance and advice with statistical

analysis (you saved my bacon); Alena Reznichenko, Bob Wicks, Chloe

Johnston, Chris Shepherd, Dawn Howe-Denison, Emma Carreon, Leila

Vincent, Lorali Luisi, Maria Williams, Martine Abel, Richell Frantz,

Sam Buckley, Tatiana Brown, Tracey-Lee Wood, Karen Plimmer,

Gaewyn Harvey, and Helen Mahoney for support and assistance.

Lastly, but not least, I would like to thank with all my heart my partner

Helen and family who have had to put up with a thesis in their lives for

two years. Without you I could never have done it.

vi

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to the blind, deafblind and vision-impaired

people of New Zealand and, in particular, all of those blind individuals

who have struggled against huge odds and the effects of persistent

attitudinal barriers to obtaining and retaining employment.

“Prejudice is something we see in others and accuse them of it. We

rarely admit it ourselves.” Reich and Adcock

“The formula for success is putting the right people in the right jobs

and then sitting on the sidelines and being a rousing good

cheerleader.” A. Marshal Jones

Note: DDA refers to the Disability Discrimination Act (United

Kingdom)

vii

GLOSSARY

adventitiously blind. A person who acquires a vision impairment or blindness during their lifetime

ADA. Americans with Disabilities Act

ANZIC. Australian and New Zealand Industrial Classification (1996)

ANZSCO. Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (2005)

ATDP. Attitudes Towards Disabled Persons scale.

ATBP. Attitudes Towards Blind Persons scale

attitude. Cognitive representations of our evaluation of ourselves, other people, things, actions, events, ideas

blind. Someone whose vision is such that they meet RNZFB registration criteria

blind and vision-impaired. Refers to and is inclusive of blind, vision-impaired and deafblind people.

congenitally blind. A person who is born blind or vision-impaired

deafblind. People who have both a vision and hearing impairment

disability. Impairments which become disabilities when the organisation of society makes access or inclusion difficult

environment. Physical characteristics of the world as well as societal attitudes, organisational practices and processes

habilitation. Services to help people gain, maintain, and improve skills that allow them to live and participate in their local community

impairment. A functional limitation, e.g. person may have limited hearing or experience learning difficulties

retardation. Someone with an intellectual disability or handicap

RNZFB. Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind

vision-impaired. People who have reduced or low vision, some of whom are eligible for membership and receive services from the

viii

RNZFB

ix

C h a p t e r 1

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Overview

It is estimated that one in five (743,800) New Zealanders have some

form of disability (New Zealand Disability Strategy, Ministry of

Health, 2001). The New Zealand Human Rights Act (New Zealand

Human Rights Commission, 1993) prohibits employment

discrimination against those who are disabled (including the blind

and vision-impaired) and against people who choose to use a

remedial aid such as a guide dog in performing their employment

duties. The Human Rights Act is further embodied in the New

Zealand Disability Strategy (2001) and the Pathways To Inclusion

Strategy (Department of Labour, 2001). Yet in 2001, 9.4% of

disabled people in the labour force were unemployed and actively

seeking work, compared with 6% of non-disabled people (Ministry

of Social Development - Office for Disability Issues, 2002).

The 2001 New Zealand Disability Survey (Statistics New Zealand,

2002) estimated that 81,500 New Zealand adults were blind or had

a sight limitation that could not be corrected by glasses or contact

lenses. In a 2002 study of 18—65-year-old members of the Royal

New Zealand Foundation of the Blind (RNZFB), the unemployment

rate was found to be between 14% and 24% (La Grow, 2004)

depending on the definition of ‘unemployed’ and between 9% and

28% were considered to be underemployed. The unemployment

rate of blind people is up to four times that of the general

population and up to 2½ times that of the wider disabled

population. In June 2003, the official unemployment rate in New

1

Zealand dropped further to 4.7% which contributed an even greater

employment gap.

Given the strong non-discrimination messages to employers

through legislation and government strategies, why is it that there

remain so many disabled (and in particular blind people) not

employed or underemployed?

Blind people in employment

Blind people find it hard to obtain and retain employment in

comparison with other disability groups (Jensen, Sathiyandra,

Rochford, Jones, Krishnan & McLeod, 2004). This is despite Tyler’s

research which states that “with minor accommodations, visually

impaired workers can become productive, loyal and enthusiastic

numbers of the team” (as cited in Waby, 2003, p. 5). When a 2001

Saskatchewan Employer Survey asked employers which of nine

disability types could fill jobs they had available in their companies

only 6% said they had jobs that someone who was ‘blind or visually

impaired’ could perform (Scott 2003).

Two New Zealand studies have examined blind people in

employment. The first, by Beatson in 1981, found 60% of those

1419 blind and vision-impaired people surveyed were unemployed

(this figure included those who stated they were “housewives”,

“students”, or “retired”). Even if the students and so forth were

removed from the calculations, 28.5% were unemployed. Beatson

(1981) also concluded underemployment of blind people was

significant in the New Zealand blind community.

These findings are reinforced by the second New Zealand study

undertaken by La Grow (2004). La Grow’s study examined the level

of unemployment of blind and vision-impaired people in New

Zealand. One hundred and fifty randomly selected members of the

RNZFB between the ages of 18 and 65 years were interviewed. La

2

Grow found that 39% were employed either full time or part time.

Those with the least amount of usable vision were less likely to be

employed (26%) than those with some usable vision (36%) or than

those with “a lot” of usable vision (63%). The unemployment rate

amongst blind and vision-impaired people was found to be between

14% and 24%, which is four to six times higher than the national

unemployment rate is an extremely high rate when it is compared

with the more recent overall unemployment rate 3.4% (Household

Labour Force Survey, Statistics New Zealand, September quarter,

2005).

Definition of blind and vision-impaired

There are many different definitions of blindness and vision

impairment. These include “legal” definitions used to authenticate

people’s access to rehabilitation and habilitation services. These

definitions vary from country to country and from service

organisation to service organisation. Definitions cover individuals

who are both congenitally blind and adventitiously blind and

encompass varying degrees or levels of low vision through to

complete blindness.

The definition utilised by the RNZFB for membership is 6/24m in

the best corrected eye or less than 20% field of vision in the best

corrected eye. However, a more general definition easily

understood by the public was developed as part of the 2001 New

Zealand Disability Survey where it was estimated 81,500 New

Zealand adults were blind or had a sight limitation that could not

be corrected by glasses or contact lenses. Approximately 7,800 of

these adults were completely blind, while the rest had some level

of seeing limitation that made it difficult for them to see ordinary

newspaper print or see the face of someone across the room (with

glasses or contact lenses if they usually wore them).

3

For the purposes of this research the latter more generally

descriptive definition is used for what we call blindness and vision

impairment. This definition is:

People who are completely blind and people who have a vision

impairment that makes it difficult for them to see ordinary

newspaper print or see the face of someone across the room

(with glasses or contact lenses if they usually wear them).

This definition was explained to people who were surveyed if they

asked what was meant by “blind and vision-impaired”. For those

who did not ask for clarification it was assumed they took the

statement “blind and vision-impaired” to mean general blindness.

Employment barriers

The Human Rights Act (1993) prohibits discrimination against

people with disabilities. This applies to blind and vision-impaired

people. It is therefore illegal to discriminate on the grounds of

disability in employment (where the disabled applicant is qualified

for the position) or to insist that the job tasks (not essential to the

job) are difficult or impossible for blind and vision-impaired people

to undertake.

Despite this Act and other government policies (such as the New

Zealand Disability Strategy, Ministry of Health, 2001, and Pathways

to Inclusion, Department of Labour, 2001) employer discrimination

continues to impact on blind and vision-impaired job seekers. Blind

people themselves have identified that discrimination is the biggest

hurdle for them to overcome (La Grow, 2004; Jensen et al., 2004;

Gilbride et al., 2000; Crothall, 2004) in gaining employment. Many

of these barriers are attitudinal and include a range of factors, for

example, fear of the unknown, inferiority; pity; ignorance,

stereotypes, denial and so forth.

4

Attitudes definition

There appears to be no universal definition of the concept of

attitudes (Olsen & Zanna, 1993). However, in the past the concept

of attitudes has been described in terms of evaluation, affect,

cognition and behavioural predisposition. Triandis (1971) defines

an attitude as “an idea charged with emotion which predisposes a

class of actions to a particular class of social situations” (as cited in

Antonak, 1988, chap. 9, p. 110). More recently Antonak and

Livneh (2000) described attitudes as “latent or inferred psycho-

social processes that lie dormant within one’s self, unless evoked by

specified referents” (p. 212).

Whatever the preferred definition of attitudes, it is clear they are

driven by people’s values and they influence (amongst other things)

our beliefs and behaviour towards people with disabilities.

The effect of attitudes on people with disabilities

In a number of studies examining attitudes towards people with

disabilities it has been reported that attitudes towards the disabled

tended to be, by and large, negative (Gething & Wheeler, 1992:

Levy, Jessop, Rimmerman, Levy & Francis, 1993). Negative

attitudes are not just limited to those who have little experience or

knowledge of people with disabilities, as Brillhart, Jay and Wyers

(1990) discovered of those individuals or practitioners who work

directly with people with disabilities. However, Junco (2002)

concludes this is largely a burn-out/stress response due to

situations where there is intense ongoing interaction between

practitioners and individuals in their care with often severe or

multiple disabilities. Overall, however, negative attitudes lead us to

marginalise or discriminate against others.

In cases where the attitudes were more positive it was discovered

that these individuals had had contact with people with disabilities

(Levy, 1992; Kregel & Unger, 1993). Contact with people with

5

disabilities, therefore, enables employers to overcome the fear of

the unknown, to understand and appreciate the abilities of others

and to realise that blind people are similar to themselves.

Problem statement

Research into employers’ attitudes towards employing people with

disabilities has been carried out over 50 years or more. Lyth (1973)

records the earliest research in 1949, conducted by Noland and

Blake, who identified a number of elements of the employer role

and how these related to attitudes regarding employing disabled

people. Most of the research examines employer attitudes towards

employing the disabled as a generic group rather than individual

disabled groups. While this research is very useful it does not

provide many answers to the question of why some disabled groups

are less favoured by employers than others. Those who have

examined individual disabled groups (Chism & Satcher, 1997) have

done so by examining employers’ attitudes to employing those with

severe disabilities, e.g. intellectual disabilities or psychiatric

disorders.

Of interest, and pertinent to this study, was research conducted

into employers’ hiring practices and perceptions towards employing

people of different disabilities (Gilbride et al., 2000). This research

identified that people with moderate to severe intellectual

handicaps and those who were blind or vision-impaired were the

hardest of 14 disability types to employ. However, the study did not

go to the next level to find out why this was the case.

No research that I have found has studied employer attitudes to

employing blind people specifically, other than one unpublished

New Zealand study (Waby, 2003). Research that examines blind

employment (both peer reviewed and informal) has focused its

attention on understanding the level of blind employment in

comparison with that of non-disabled employment (Beatson, 1981;

6

La Grow, 2002) and understanding the perceptions of the blind on

the barriers to gaining employment, e.g. employer attitudes (Waby,

2003; Maurer, 1995; Dick, 1998; Millman, 2001; Crothall, 2004).

Researcher’s interest

The researcher’s interest in this topic is generated through work

responsibilities at the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind

(RNZFB). The division for which the researcher has responsibility

undertakes employer awareness and provides an employment

placement service for blind and vision-impaired members of the

Foundation. The anecdotal evidence points to employer

discrimination towards blind and vision-impaired people. Assuming

this current study ratifies this, it is hoped that as a positive outcome

the study will provide a clearer understanding of employers’ fears

and misconceptions, so that the Foundation can target and design

appropriate awareness activities to help break down negative

attitudes within the business community.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Purpose of study

My interest is in the blind community, which the research of the

literature has shown to be in the less favoured groups of job

applicants that employers are willing to employ. None of the

research has addressed why this is the case. The purpose of this

study is to investigate in depth the attitudes and perceptions of

employers towards hiring people with disabilities and in particular

the blind and vision-impaired.

Research aims

The aim of my research is therefore to ascertain if blind and vision-

impaired people are less favoured (in comparison with other

disability groups) as potential employees in New Zealand firms and

to examine employer attitudes and perceptions towards employing

7

blind people, what these attitudes and perceptions are and how or

why they influence employers to overlook the blind and vision-

impaired when employing staff. This aim can be broken down into

four key components which are:

1. To understand and measure employer attitude differences

towards hiring persons with specific disabilities.

2. To explore the origins of attitudes and perceptions towards

people with disabilities (particularly the blind), for example

are they based on myths or lack of knowledge?

3. To discover if there are interrelated demographic factors that

predict attitude towards blind and vision-impaired people.

4. To develop relevant recommendations that mitigates any

intrinsic discriminatory attitudes towards blind and vision-

impaired people.

RESEARCH SEQUENCE

This introductory chapter is concluded with an explanation of the

research report providing an overview of the research process,

results and discussion. The structure of this study was a survey of

employers to establish their attitudes towards blind and vision-

impaired people, including their propensity for hiring them as

employees.

Chapter 2 -- Review of the literature, focuses on six key areas.

The first is an overview and explanation of attitudes and the

theories of attitude development. Secondly, the literature on

employer attitudes towards employing people with disabilities is

discussed and contrasted. Thirdly, the extent to which employer

attitudes towards employing disabled people differs between the

wider physical disability group and individual groups (in particular

the blind) is examined. This is followed by a discussion of the

8

employment barriers and employer attitudes experienced by the

blind and vision-impaired and then how the attitudes contributing

to barriers can be changed. Lastly, what further research is

required to understand why employers prefer to employ people

with certain disabilities over others is discussed.

Chapter 3 -- Methodology, provides the detail of the methods the

researcher used to assess employers’ attitudes towards blind and

vision-impaired people and their perceptions and hiring practices

regarding the employability of people with disabilities. This chapter

also discusses the development of the survey instrument, data

collection methods and the research hypotheses.

Chapter 4 -- Findings, details the findings of the research. The

chapter begins with a general overview of the findings, then a

description of the demographics of the participants, their

companies and history of employing people with disabilities. The

second part of the findings reports on the results of the employer

hiring practices and perceptions survey which includes which

disability types are rated as most employable through to those not

easily employable. Some comparisons are provided between

disability groups including which disability types are preferred for

which types of jobs. The third part of the findings chapter reports

on the attitudes towards blind persons scale and whether the

variables such as age, gender and contact with people with

disabilities influence attitudes. Lastly this chapter presents the

results against the research hypotheses.

Chapter 5 -- Discussion, this last chapter analyses the results of

the survey highlighting the dichotomy between attitudes and

employment of blind and vision-impaired people. This chapter also

examines possible explanations for employers’ attitudes and what

barriers these attitudes present for blind and vision-impaired

people. Recommendations are also made regarding how to change

9

attitudes and support employers to change and move forward in

their disability employment practice. Lastly, the chapter concludes

with general conclusions and limitations of the research, the

implications of the study and suggestions for further research.

10

C h a p t e r 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

This literature review examines firstly the issues around attitudes,

their development and associated theory, including the influence

attitudes have on our beliefs and behaviours. Secondly, the

attitudes towards people with disabilities are discussed along with

any specific studies that examine attitudes towards the blind and

vision-impaired. These attitude studies are compared and

contrasted in terms of their emphasis towards a global or individual

perspective. Thirdly, the literature relating to barriers to the

employment of blind and vision-impaired people is examined,

including an examination of attitude change.

Attitudes, development and theory

“An attitude is an idea charged with emotion which predisposes a

class of actions to a particular class of social situations” (Triandis,

1971, p. 6). This definition was further explained by Triandis as

comprising three components of attitudes: cognitive, affective and

behavioural. These components can be further explained as

follows:

1. Cognitive – is an idea which is usually a category used in our

thinking, e.g. “dogs”, which is a category we use to describe

many breeds of dogs.

2. Affective – is the emotion which charges the idea, i.e. feeling

“good” or “bad” about a category. For example, if we feel

good when thinking about dogs we have a positive affect

component towards them.

11

3. Behavioural – is our predisposition to action, e.g. walking,

feeding and petting a dog.

We need to develop attitudes because they help us to summarise

the complex environmental information we are constantly faced

with.

The majority of writers appear to agree that attitudes are learned.

Therefore we can deduce that attitude learning, retention, and

decline of an attitude is no different from learning a skill such as

knitting, sewing or reading and writing. These skills involve the

problems of perception and motivation as does attitude

development (Doob, 1971). Brewster Smith (1973) discussed a

theory that suggested six ways in which we acquire information

that contributes to the formation of attitudes. These are:

Blind trial-and-error

General perception

Perception of others’ responses

Perception of the outcomes of others’ explorations

Verbal instructions relevant to behaviour

Verbal instructions about objects’ characteristics

Attitudes are learned in a variety of ways throughout our lifetimes,

although the majority of attitudes are learnt in our childhood years

(Livneh, 1982). Attitudes can be both positive and negative (Yuker,

1994; Livneh 1982 & 1998; Antonak 1988; Antonak & Livneh,

2000).

Attitudes are formed through ways such as sociocultural

conditioning and childhood influences (Livneh, 1982). Yuker (1994)

also suggests attitudes towards disabled people are part of an

attitude cluster that is a function of several types of variables

including:

the non-disabled person’s characteristics,

12

the perceived disabled person’s characteristics and

behaviour, and

other variables such as context, group norms and method

variables.

However, are attitudes a predictor of behaviour? This is a question

that has been pondered by many researchers. Eccles and Six (as

cited in Bohner and Wänke, 2002) undertook a comprehensive

meta-analysis of attitude-behaviour studies which analysed

research between 1927 and 1990. The studies reviewed were

…categorised according to the behavioural domain that they examined,

and the mean correlation between attitude and behaviour was computed

separately for studies in each category. The results indicated that

attitudes do predict behaviour, albeit with differing accuracy. In some

domains, such as altruistic behaviour or family planning (and work,

researcher comment), correlations were low to moderate, whereas in

other areas, for example using (both legal and illegal) drugs, the predictive

power of attitudes was substantial (p. 222).

This study implies certain situations foster greater consistency

between attitude and behaviour and highlights that particular

attitudes or behaviours are more strongly linked than others.

Employer attitudes

The majority of research into employer attitudes towards employing

people with disabilities has been conducted in the United States.

Wilgosh and Skaret (1987) conducted a literature review relating to

employer attitudes towards hiring individuals with disabilities.

They concluded:

1. In some cases, employer attitudes were negative and thus

likely to inhibit the employment and advancement of people

with disabilities.

13

2. Employers attitudes differ towards employing people with

different disabilities, and particularly

3. employers were least likely to employ people with an

intellectual handicap or those who were blind.

4. Prior positive contact with people with disabilities was related

to favourable employer attitudes; and

5. a discrepancy existed between employers’ expressed

willingness to hire applicants with disabilities and their actual

hiring practices.

6. Training or educating employers on disabled peoples’

capabilities and skills was important.

In the same year Greenwood and Johnson (1987) studied employer

perspectives on workers with disabilities and employers’

willingness to hire job applicants with disabilities. The researchers

found that:

1. Employers from bigger companies reported more positive

attitudes than those from smaller companies.

2. In a number of studies respondents with higher levels of

academic achievement expressed more positive attitudes than

those with lower academic achievement.

Hernandez (2000) reviewed the body of literature from 1987 to

1999. All in all this included 37 studies published after the 1987

reviews of Wilgosh and Skaret, and Greenwood and Johnson. The

research by Hernandez identified that researchers have examined

the attitudes of employers in two distinct ways. These are:

“Global” – where researchers evaluated the general area of

employer attitudes to the employment of people with disabilities but

14

did not cover individual employers’ planned actions or intentions.

Generally the results of these pieces of research demonstrated

positive employer attitudes towards employing workers with

disabilities.

“Individual” – where researchers evaluated more specifically

employers’ attitudes regarding their intentions not to hire people

with disabilities. In general the results of this type of research

demonstrated more negative employer attitudes towards workers

with disabilities.

Attitudes towards individuals with disabilities

Global attitudes

Hernandez concluded that when employers were asked about the

overall concept or philosophy about employing people with

disabilities they were very positive in their responses but that this

did not translate into individual actions to employ disabled people.

their words were “these findings suggest that there appears a thin

veneer of employer acceptance of workers with disabilities”

(Hernandez., 2000, p. 3). This may give a clue as to why some

disability groups (those with mild conditions or easily

accommodated in the workplace) are favoured by employers over

others and why those who appear in the ‘too hard basket’ or with

more severe disabilities are less likely to be employed.

Levy et al. (1992) undertook a “global” mail questionnaire study of

Fortune 500 executives of industrial and service organisations to

assess their attitudes to employing people with severe disabilities.

Three hundred and forty-one questionnaires were returned.

Results concluded that attitudes were mainly favourable and that

the level of disability acceptance was influenced by whether or not

the person hiring had experience of working with someone with a

disability. This research did not examine company policy on hiring

people with disabilities or present different potential disabled

15

employee scenarios to assess why a company would or would not

employ a particular employee with a certain disability.

Kregel and Unger (1993) studied employer perceptions of the work

potential of individuals with disabilities. This research interviewed

46 employers who had hired or supervised supported employment

participants. A Likert scale and some open-ended questions were

used to assess attitudes. The results were generally positive

regarding the employability of people with disabilities who were

participating in a supportive employment programme. Like the

1992 Levy et al. research, this demonstrates that people who had

had contact with disabled people (who in this case had been hired

by them) showed positive attitudes. Again this research is very

global in its perspective and does not address employer attitudes

towards people with particular disabilities.

Goss, Goss and Adam-Smith (2000) researched disability in

employment as it relates to the UK disability legislation. As part of

this research a mail questionnaire study was conducted of employer

disability awareness amongst private sector enterprises. One

hundred and eighty questionnaires were returned. In explaining the

low employment rates of disabled people across various companies

(which would have ordinarily been expected to have much higher

levels of disabled employees) the authors articulated what is often

perceived as the key reason why disabled people are under-

represented in employment:

However, this is unlikely to be the complete explanation, to the extent that

such labour-market ‘invisibility’ may be part of a more complex ‘chicken

and egg’ situation: disabled people often do not apply for jobs with

‘conventional’ employers because previous experience of actual, or

perceptions of likely, discrimination make such efforts appear futile (in

addition to the emotional distress resulting from unfair treatment).

Certainly there is no shortage of evidence that discrimination against

disabled job applicants and serving employees who become disabled is

widespread (Barnes, 1991, 1992; Brisenden, 1989; Hales, 1996; Barton,

16

1996). In this respect it is not a ‘shortage’ of disabled people that is at

issue but the absence of good practice among employers that limits the

labour-market choices of people with disabilities (Goss et al., 2000, p. 817).

A recent Australian study of 643 employers (Graffam, Shinkfield,

Smith & Polzin, 2002) examined the factors influencing employer’s

decisions on hiring and retaining individuals with disabilities. This

study found there were four key influences on employer’s decisions

to hire people with disabilities. These factors were those related to

the disabled person themselves (grooming, hygiene, being able to

undertake the tasks etc.): management factors (concerns about

terminating people, reluctance to take a chance, assistance

available etc.), costs (extra supervision, training, productivity,

workplace modifications etc.); and social factors (other staff being

able to work with the person, effective disability awareness

programmes, lack of social integration in the work place etc.).

While this study examined factors influencing employment of

people with disabilities, presenting some interesting and useful

results, it did not examine factors related to the employment of

individual with different disabilities.

The commonalities of these pieces of research are that they assess

global attitudes, use local and national employer samples, focus

very much on disabilities in general and not on an analysis of

attitudes towards employing people with individual disabilities, and

they used standardised scales to assess attitudes.

Individual attitudes

A New Zealand study by Bascand (1987) considered employers’

attitudes towards the employment of people with disabilities in the

Wellington area. Of a sample of 250 employers, 139 employers

returned a mail questionnaire. Of these 39 were deemed ineligible,

leaving 89 eligible respondents. Of the respondents, 59 were also

interviewed face-to-face. Of those companies who had hired people

with disabilities, only 2.8% were blind or vision-impaired.

17

Employers were asked whether the nature of the disability affected

selection criteria and placement into specific positions. Employers

felt they could employ people with certain disabilities into certain

jobs, however they tended to classify disabled persons into specific

job areas. Also employers were asked if there were any disabilities

their company excluded and the reasons for these exclusions. The

most prevalent disability excluded was blindness. This was due to

perceived problems with safety and the detail of the work

concerned.

Chism and Satcher (1997) surveyed 147 human resource

management students to assess their perceptions of employment

factors and how these may impact on their decisions to employ

people with disabilities compared with their individual knowledge

of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990, USA Congress),

personal relationships with people with disabilities or having a

personal experience with disability.

This study did address some individual disability groups including

blindness. The results indicate that the higher the knowledge or

preparedness for the ADA the more positive they were in their

attitudes towards people with disabilities. However it is in this

study that the first indication is found that students are just as

prone to stereotypical thinking about individuals with certain

disabilities. In particular, the most significant negative perceptions

were found towards those who were blind, epileptic and with

cardiovascular disease.

Gilbride et al. (2000) recognised that disabled people find it difficult

to attain employment and often feel excluded because of their

disability. The research therefore concentrated on discovering, in

more depth, the attitudes of employers towards hiring people with

disabilities. Two hundred employers were telephone surveyed.

One of the key questions addressed in the research was employers’

18

attitudes towards hiring people with specific disabilities. This

question was answered by asking employers to list the jobs most

often filled by external applicants. Then they were asked to assess

14 different disabilities and there suitability for each job they

identified. Results showed that employers thought it would be

easier to fill these positions with people with cancer, heart

impairment, or living with HIV. These same employers also

indicated that it would be more difficult to hire persons with

moderate or severe ‘retardation’ or persons who were blind for the

same jobs. This research also confirmed that those employers who

had some experience with people with disabilities were more

inclined to employ them. It was interesting to note that of those

disabled employees, blind people were the least likely to be

employed all across the United States. This research was limited

because it was confined to those companies which had employed

people in the past from the Vocational Rehabilitation Agency, and it

also failed to address why employers held these views regarding

employee suitability.

In 2002, jobability.com, a job site for disabled people,

commissioned Ipsos UK to research employers’ attitudes towards

employing disabled people. One thousand telephone interviews

were conducted with employers in companies with 15 employees or

more in various industries across the UK. The research did

examine the employers’ individual attitudes to employing people

with disabilities in ‘their’ companies but failed to examine the

differences in attitudes towards the different disability groups.

However, this research did identify that 76% of employers said

“opportunities to employ disabled people have not arisen yet” and

44% of the employers said the reason was that “the type of work is

not at all suitable for disabled people”. Nearly one in five said that

other people’s attitudes had an influence on whether or not they

chose to employ disabled people.

19

These studies illustrated the concern felt about employing persons

with certain types of disability even though the studies used

different measures and methods. The majority of these studies

focused on specific disabilities and not ‘global’ disability. They

therefore examined specific employer attitudes towards people with

different disabilities and their willingness to employ them. In most

cases employers were less willing to employ those people with

intellectual and psychiatric disabilities, closely followed by

blindness. These studies all failed to examine why employers held

the attitudes identified in the studies.

Employment barriers and employer attitudes towards blind

people

In the past four years three pieces of local New Zealand research

have been undertaken on the blind in employment and one on

people with disabilities in employment. Three of these are

published and one not. Two further Canadian studies have

identified the barriers and employer discrimination towards blind

and vision-impaired people.

In 2002 La Grow undertook, on behalf of the Royal New Zealand

Foundation of the Blind, a study of its working-age members. This

study examined the participation of blind people in the workforce.

Of the 150 working-age members who participated in the survey,

between 14% and 24% were unemployed.

Of those working in paid employment, many (47.5%) were in part-

time jobs and between 9% and 28% self reported that they were

underemployed when considering either their abilities or

qualifications or their remuneration level (La Grow, 2004).

The blind and vision-impaired people were employed in a wide

variety of occupations, as one would expect in any society. Jobs

ranged from service sector positions, to unskilled labour,

20

professional, management, sales and clerical positions. The

majority of people worked in the private sector (46%), some were

self employed (29%) and some worked in the public sector (24%)

(La Grow, 2004).

Factors affecting an individual’s ability to gain and retain

employment were further researched by La Grow in 2004. The

factors affecting employment hinged on three main variables.

These were the amount of usable vision, the additional complication

of other health conditions and the age at onset of blindness. Other

variables such as age, gender or level of education and preferred

reading medium had no effect on the prospects for employment.

However, women with the least amount of vision were the group

most likely to be unemployed.

Barriers to employment, retaining employment or advancing in

careers featured significantly and affected 80% of participants in

their efforts to gain and retain employment (La Grow, 2004). While

there were many different barriers, the most common were vision

impairment and complications arising from it which hindered doing

the job itself. Other common barriers were discrimination, not

being able to drive or general transport problems, and employer

attitudes and ignorance. This study was an important first step in

understanding the barriers experienced by blind and vision-

impaired people. This study was limited in that it did not explore

the barriers from the employer’s point of view.

The findings of La Grow (2004) were confirmed in three further

New Zealand studies. The first was an unpublished study (Waby,

2003) on perceived implications of employing blind and sight-

impaired New Zealanders. Waby’s study examined employers’

views on employing blind and vision-impaired people and

investigated the barriers to employment of blind and vision-

impaired people from the employer’s perspective. Waby mail-

21

surveyed 125 employers from a wide variety of organisations and

industries. Fifty-three (42%) completed questionnaires were

returned. Some (26%) had employed people who were blind or

vision-impaired, 74% had not. A number of employers gave their

reasons for hiring a blind and vision-impaired person. The majority

of these made positive comments about the employees concerned.

Employers who had not employed a blind or vision-impaired person

gave a variety of reasons why:

Not being able to do the job (particularly not being able to

read paper instructions or files, not being able to read

computer screens and not being up to required standards)

No blind people had applied

A driver’s licence was required

Cost of adaptations to the employer

Not being able to comply with health and safety requirements

Staff resistance

This research has provided a good platform for beginning to

understand the concerns of employers and their limited

understanding of the skills and abilities of blind and vision-impaired

people. The limitations of this research were the sample size and

the fact that the employers were aware the research was being

conducted by the RNZFB which could have introduced some social

desirability responses to the questions. Lastly, this research did not

examine the employer attitudes underlying their hiring decisions.

The second was a study undertaken by Crothall (2004) where 22

totally blind employed New Zealanders (people with no usable

vision and a reliance on mobility aids such as a cane or guide dog)

were interviewed. The study focused on examining employment

barriers experienced and how these were minimised or overcome.

The five key barriers identified by participants were:

Negative attitudes and ignorance of employers (100%)

Access to adaptive equipment (77%)

22

Gaps between periods of employment (60%)

Underemployment (55%)

Difficulty gaining employment for which participants were

qualified 46% (Crothall, 2004)

Note: the percentages have been rounded

Interestingly, Crothall also explored the success factors for

participants in gaining and retaining employment. These included:

“(1) adapting to and accepting vision impairment; (2) the ability to deal with

frustrations relating to such things as other people’s attitudes and equipment

difficulties; (3) having good mobility and people skills; (4) knowing one’s

limitations but being prepared to be flexible and take risks; (5) being

determined; (6) seeking vocational advice from the RNZFB and Workbridge;

(7) being happy with achievements but not being so satisfied that achievement

stops; and (8) remembering that everyone makes mistakes – it’s not always

because of blindness” (Crothall, 2004, p. 48).

Not surprisingly, the key thing that participants said in response to

a call for ideas on what would mitigate the barriers, was the

removal of the negative attitudes of employers. Crothall’s study

(2004) reinforces the view that employers do hold negative

attitudes to people with disabilities (Chism & Satcher, 1997;

Gething & Wheeler, 1992; Hernandez 2000: Hernandez, keys &

Balcazar, 2004; Gilbride et al., 2000) and to some disability groups

more than others (Gilbride et al., 2000; Chism et al., 1997; Wilgosh

& Skaret, 1987). This research has certainly identified barriers

from the blind person’s point of view; however, this research does

not explore what the actual attitudes of employers are and their

origins.

The third was a national study conducted by Jensen, et al. (2004) on

disabled participation in the workforce and whether the type of

disability influenced the prospects for employment. The Jensen et

al. study (2004) reviewed two Statistics New Zealand surveys: the

2001 New Zealand Disability Survey and the 2001 Household

23

Labour Force Survey. The results of this study identified that those

with severe vision disabilities were the people employers would

have the most difficulty accommodating in their workplace. This

study was a comprehensive examination of disabled participation in

the workforce and the first New Zealand study to identify people

with severe vision disabilities as the least employable from the

employer’s perspective. While this study was based on existing

research, it has provided us with a good starting point from which

to launch further studies.

Lastly, a study undertaken by Barclay (2003) surveyed RNZFB

members and conducted focus groups to discuss employment

participation and the barriers faced by blind people seeking

employment. The results of this study highlighted the low

employment rates of blind people in comparison with those of the

general population and the significant public and employer

attitudes and lack of disability knowledge that put up barriers to

their participation in the workforce.

A recent study undertaken by the Canadian Institute of the Blind

(Simpson, Gold & Zuvela, 2005) surveyed 352 blind people on their

needs. Part of the research explored employment and barriers to

employment. By far the most common barrier was employer

attitudes. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of working-age participants

reported that employers “do not see the blind applicant’s potential

and another 26% reported that employers are simply unwilling to

hire someone with vision impairment” (p. 1).

Changing attitudes

Many studies have been undertaken to assess whether or not it is

possible to change attitudes. Junco (2002) undertook a study to

assess the ability of an online training programme to change

attitudes towards students with disabilities. Junco found that the

24

online training did make a difference in that it made attitudes more

positive towards individuals with disabilities.

How do we change attitudes? (Triandis, 1971) described a number

of ways attitudes can be changed. These can include:

1. Education/information from mass media or individuals which

affects the cognitive component of attitudes. An example is

the change in attitudes towards people with HIV/AIDS as a

result of extensive public education programmes over the

past 10 years or so.

2. Direct experience with attitude “object”, i.e. the person or

persons with disabilities.

3. Forcing an individual to behave in ways that are different

from their existing attitudes, i.e. through legislation such as

non-discrimination measures in the Human Rights Act (1993).

4. “Fait accompli” changes, meaning once an event has taken

place, attitudes change to become consistent with the

implications of the event, e.g. opposition to the invasion of

another country but afterwards people tend to support it.

5. Counselling or psychotherapy can increase insight and

change negative attitudes by providing positive reinforcement

for certain more positive attitudes.

In terms of changing employers’ attitudes towards hiring people

with disabilities, Gilbride, et al. (2000) referred to evidence in five

studies which suggested that if effective interventions are made,

employers’ receptivity towards hiring people with disabilities can

be improved. However this was tempered by the suggestion that

‘change’ professionals must have more complete and accurate data

about employer needs and attitudes to effectively design and

undertake attitude change programmes.

25

While we might think that changing attitudes is easy, the

amelioration of negative attitudes (Triandis, 1971; Yuker, 1994;

Livneh, 1982, Wicker, 1971) is in fact a difficult process, especially

if the underlying principles of attitude function, development, and

rationale are not addressed. Identifying these underlying

dimensions is crucial to effective programme development to alter

or improve negative attitudes. It is necessary to define what types

of attitudes exist, among whom and to what degree, before

beginning the process of course development. Festinger also wisely

suggests that attitude change will not disappear unless “the

environment is supportive of the behavioural change that

accompanied attitude change. He argued that what developed the

attitude in the first place continues to act on the subject, and he is

likely to go back to his earlier attitude unless there is some real

environmental change that sustains his new attitude” (cited in

Triandis, 1971, p. 88).

Summary

In general the research discussed has shown that attitudes are

learned and are a combination of cognitive, affective and

behavioural components that help us to summarise the complex

environmental information we are faced with daily. In some

instances attitudes are predictors of behaviour but in other areas

such as employment or hiring practices they are not. While

changing attitudes is possible, it is not easy. A number of studies

suggest that if effective interventions are made which address the

underlying principles of attitude function, development and

rationale the change process will be successful.

In terms of employer attitudes towards people with disabilities, it

can be concluded that employers had positive attitudes towards

employing people with disabilities in the “global” sense. They were

less positive in those research studies that examined specific

individual attitudes towards particular disability groups. Both of

26

these attitude trends were positively influenced if the employer had

prior contact with people with disabilities. There was, in the

research on individual attitudes, an overt expression of a preferred

disability type. For example, employers were more willing to

employ those with physical disabilities than those who were blind or

those with intellectual or psychiatric disabilities. This is supported

by recent studies that found unemployment was high for blind and

vision-impaired people in comparison with other disability groups

and the general population. Employers also found it more difficult

to employ them, and blind and vision-impaired.

Gaps

The research examines attitudes towards people with disabilities as

a group. One study examines employers’ potential hiring practice

which provides some valuable insight into employers’ attitudes

towards hiring people with a variety of disabilities. However, the

research examined neither illustrates the extent to which employer

attitudes stem from personal experience, misconceptions and

stereotypes, lack of disability “ability” information nor how the

disabled employees’ special needs can be met. Secondly the

research does not tell us why some disability groups are favoured

over others.

The researcher’s interest is in the blind, which this research has

shown to be in the less favoured groups of potential. None of the

research examined has addressed why this is the case. There is a

lack of international and more specifically New Zealand research

that examines employer attitudes towards hiring blind and vision-

impaired people. However, there are a number of excellent New

Zealand studies which examine employment levels of blind and

vision-impaired people and barriers experienced by them in

seeking, gaining and retaining employment. Therefore this current

study examines employer attitudes towards employing blind people,

27

what they are and why these influence employers to overlook the

blind.

Given the lack of research into why specific disabled groups are

favoured over others, and what and why particular attitudes may

lead to such favouritism, this research will have some significance

in addressing these research gaps.

In particular this study will contribute to the overall body of

knowledge in the disability and business sectors by increasing our

knowledge and understanding of these pervasive attitudes. This

hopefully will lead to the discovery of mechanisms and strategies

to change these attitudes and in the long term decrease

discrimination towards blind people and people with disabilities in

general and increase the numbers of blind people gaining and

maintaining meaningful employment. This will be of immediate

benefit to the Foundation of the Blind and their efforts to break

down employment barriers, thus allowing the employment of blind

and vision-impaired people. Ultimately the blind and vision-

impaired job seekers of New Zealand will be the greatest

beneficiaries in their quest for meaningful employment.

It is also hoped that this research will influence public policy in the

equal employment opportunities area and contribute to developing

new strategies for implementing the New Zealand Disability

Strategy (2001) and Pathways to Inclusion Strategy (2001).

28

C h a p t e r 3

METHODOLOGY

This study was designed to measure attitudes of employers towards

hiring individuals with disabilities and particularly whether those

who are blind and vision-impaired were less favoured than other

disability groups. Secondly this study assesses employers’ attitudes

towards blind and vision-impaired people as a specific disability

group. This chapter contains an explanation of the methods and

procedures used in the conduct of the research.

Measurement of employer attitudes towards employing

people with disabilities

Measurement of attitudes towards people with disabilities utilises

various forms of disability scales. The Attitudes Towards Disabled

Persons scale (ATDP) (Yuker, Block & Campbell, 1960) is probably

the most well known. Others include the Interaction with Disabled

Persons Scale (IDP) (Gething, 1994), Modified Issues in Disability

scale (MIDS) (Makas, 1985), Scale of Attitude Towards Disabled

Persons (SADP) Antonak, 1981).

The ATDP scale, which appears to be the most widely used, consists

of three forms, form A, form B and form O. Form O, the most

widely accepted, has been modified as part of this study, and

consists of 20 items scored on a six-point Likert scale. The scale

scores range from +3 (I agree very much) to -3 (I disagree very

much). Scores can range from 0 to 120. In this study the scores

were converted to a scale of 1 to 6 with 1 being “disagree very

much” and 6 being “agree very much”. The lower scores on the

ATDP indicate more negative attitudes towards people with

disabilities.

29

However the ATDP scale and other disability attitude scales rely on

unidimensional measures of affect towards the “disabled”. Those

developing such scales seem to assume consistent “bias potential”

within and even across disabilities (Thomas, 2001). “The approach

also often makes the unlikely assumption that individuals with

vastly different disabilities are perceived equally by the non-

disabled” (p. 1).

In the current study, questions from the ATDP scale were modified

to reflect blindness rather than unidimensional or generic disability

and combined with some questions from the Attitudes to Blindness

scale (AB) (Cowen, Underberg & Verrillo, 1958). The overall

number of questions was reduced from 20 to 16.

The modified form was piloted with 12 employers. After obtaining

the pilot data, a group, including the research supervisors,

reviewed the results and comments from employers and made

recommendations to improve the instrument. Some items were

reworded to reduce potential ambiguity, the structure modified and

some questions were removed and new ones added. The revised

instrument was then reviewed again and retested on two employers

to verify the validity of the changes made.

The final form was then validated using SPSS, the pre-test

validation function, which found the modified scale utilised was

reliable as it scored an alpha score of 0.849 which is greater than

the 0.70 alpha score considered reliable. This is in line with Yuker

and Hurley’s (1987) conclusions which suggest a reliability alpha

score of between 0.79 and 0.89 for the ATDP scale. A further test,

an inter-item correlation matrix (Cronbach’s alpha) was conducted

to ascertain if the impact of removing each or any item would

improve the reliability of the instrument. This resulted in none of

the items having an improving influence on the total reliability of

the instrument. The alpha scores ranged from 0.82 and 0.84.

30

Attitude scales have been scrutinised and questioned as to their

validity in recent years. Some have sought to prove that research

participants can fake their answers or give what is called the

“socially desirable” responses to the questions. Junco (2002)

reported on studies undertaken by Vargo and Semple (1984),

Hagler, Vargo and Semple (1987) and Cannon and Szuhay (1986) in

which all participants who had been asked to fake a more positive

score on the ATDP scale found that participants scored significantly

more positively than those participants who were asked to answer

honestly.

While this bias can never be completely eliminated, the researcher

has attempted to ensure that the developed instrument was valid

and reliable. Being aware of this potential will assist in the analysis

of results of the current study.

Selection of subjects

The UBD business directory was used to select businesses for this

study. This directory gives not only the business contact details but

also the staff size of each business, its main purpose and business

classification. The online version of this database enables the

researcher to target regions and businesses of various sizes and

classifications. While this took some time, it was extremely efficient

and easy to use. The total number of businesses in the research

sample was 200.

Subject selection procedure

The method used to select the participants as described by Trochim

(2002) was multi-stage sampling including: cluster sampling;

probability stratified random sampling; and systematic random

sampling.

The three steps in the sampling process are as follows:

31

1. Cluster (area) random sampling was used by the researcher

to more effectively and realistically sample the population

that is distributed across a wide geographic region, by

dividing the sample population into clusters on a geographical

basis. This was achieved by firstly dividing the business in

each of the Statistics New Zealand classified regions into size

categories (micro/small = 1 -- 49 employees and

medium/large = 50 employees and above). (See Appendix C).

Secondly the population of region was calculated as a

percentage of the total country population.

2. A stratified random sampling process was used to select the

total number of businesses to be sampled in each region.

Stratified random sampling involves dividing your population

into homogeneous subgroups and then taking a simple

random sample in each subgroup. This comprised three

stages:

a. The population percentage as part of the national

population was established for each region, e.g.

Northland’s population is 140,130 and as a proportion

of the total country population it is 3.7%.

b. Each region’s percentage of the national population

was used to calculate the total number of businesses to

be sampled in each region, e.g. Northland’s percentage

of population was 3.7%. Of the total number of

businesses to be in the sample of 200, Northland’s

share was seven (fractions were rounded either up or

down as appropriate).

c. As small to medium businesses comprise approximately

90% of all businesses, the regional total sample was

allocated proportionately. For example in Northland

seven businesses were to be sampled and therefore

32

90% of those were to be small to medium businesses,

which in this case was six businesses. The remaining

10% (or one business) was to come from those

businesses in Northland that employed over 50

employees.

3. The selection method for the 200 company sample from the

UBD database was achieved by using systematic random

sampling in each region and within each stratum (small to

medium businesses and large businesses). This is often used

instead of random sampling. It is also called an Nth name

selection technique. After the required sample has been

calculated, every Nth record is selected from a list of

population members. For this research an integer of 4 was

selected then every 50th business was taken until the total for

each region and strata was achieved. In each region and for

each strata (to get to the start point for counting the

businesses) the first four businesses were skipped and the

counting began from that point onwards, which meant the

first business to be selected was at count 54, the second at

104, the third at 154 and so on.

Instrumentation

Employer Hiring Practices and Perceptions Survey (EHPPS)

The Gilbride et al. (2000) Employer Hiring Practices and

Perceptions Survey (EHPPS) was recently developed to investigate

the attitudes and perceptions of employers towards hiring people

with different disabilities. The instrument consists of 69 questions

divided into three sections. The sections included demographic

questions and employer identified jobs most often open to external

applicants, including an assessment of how hard it might be to

employ individuals with different disabilities for that job, on a five-

point Likert scale. The third section examined employer awareness

of the American Vocational Rehabilitation Service.

33

This instrument was repeated minus the third section in the current

study because it was irrelevant in the New Zealand context and to

the research objectives. The first two sections were utilised to

ascertain which disability groups were more employable or less

employable than others and, in particular, whether or not blind and

vision-impaired people along with those with moderate to severe

intellectual disabilities were the least likely to be employed in New

Zealand.

Modified attitudes scale (ATDP and AB)

The Attitudes Towards Disabled Persons (ATDP) scale is a 27-item

Likert scale which asks participants to rate their agreement or non-

agreement to statements on the six-point forced-choice format

scale. The ATDP scale is an accepted measure of attitudes that

has been widely used in the literature (Antonak, 1988; Antonak &

Livneh, 1988; Yuker & Hurley, 1987). Yuker and Hurley (1987)

described how the ATDP scale has been extensively studied. Scores

on the ATDP scale have shown acceptable split-half reliabilities

ranging from 0.78 to 0.81 and alpha estimates ranging from 0.79 to

0.89.

The Attitudes to Blindness (AB) scale was developed in 1958 by

Cowen, Underberg and Verrillo (Antonak & Livneh, 1988). The AB

scale includes 30 questions answered on a four-point Likert scale.

Reliability has been shown on the Spearman-Brown corrected split-

half reliability coefficient of 0.91.

This current study utilises the two attitude scales (ATDP and AB),

which for this study’s purposes has been called the ATBP or

Attitudes Towards Blind Persons scale. The ATDP was used as the

base scale with some questions imported from the AB scale. These

were then modified to more particularly include questions that

addressed employment of blind and vision-impaired people. This

modified scale (ATBP) was used to measure attitudes towards blind

34

people in employment. However, research participants were led to

believe that blind and vision impairment was randomly chosen out

of all disability groups for the second part of the telephone

interview.

Demographic questions

The first section consisted of questions related to the interviewee’s

role and type of business plus questions regarding whether the

person had hired people with disabilities in the past and, if so,

additional comments on that experience. This demographic

instrument was a repeat of the first section of the EHPPS with the

addition of some specific information that related to the New

Zealand situation. This included the Australian and New Zealand

Standard Industrial Classification, 1996 (ANZSIC) was used to

classify the businesses surveyed. In addition, the second section

utilised the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of

Occupations 2005 (ANZSCO) to classify the two occupations the

researcher asked the participants about. The demographic

questions comprised in part some variables to be measured in the

research, particularly as many previous studies had identified these

variables as correlates of attitude towards disability.

Final instrument

The final instrument comprised 67 questions and was divided into

three sections. The first and second sections were a direct

replication of the first and second sections in the EHPPS (Gilbride

et al., 2000).

The first section consisted of eight questions that dealt with general

employment data. Questions included the number of employees, job

title of the contact person, previous knowledge of employing a

person with a disability, number of employees with a disability

hired, disability types, accommodations provided, and whether they

were glad they had hired a person with a disability.

35

In the second section, employers identified the job positions “most

often” and “second most often” open and typically filled by external

job applicants. Employers were then presented with 14 different

types of disabilities and asked to consider “how hard do you think it

would be to hire a person for this job” for each disability.

Perceptions were scored on a five-level Likert-style scale with

responses ranging from 1 = “impossible” to 5 = “no problem at all”.

The third and last section of the survey examined employer

attitudes by utilising the Attitudes Towards Blind Persons scale

(ATBP -- modified ATDP scale with some input from the AB scale).

The ATBP scale consisted of 16 statements where respondents

indicated on a six-point Likert scale from “disagree very much” to

“agree very much” how true each statement is to them. There is no

neutral point on the scale. Three of the items are reverse scored

(items 49, 53 and 57). Scores can range from 16 to 96, where the

higher scores indicate more positive attitudes towards blind and

vision-impaired people.

The third section also included some questions for general

statistical purposes. These included questions on age of the

respondent, education level, whether or not they had a family

member, or previous contact, with individuals with disabilities, the

participant’s ethnicity and whether or not they would be willing to

participate in a later in-depth interview.

Collection of data

Telephone surveys

Based on the Gilbride et al. (2000) EHPPS survey of businesses in

the USA and discussion with statisticians at Massey University, a

research sample of 200 businesses was established as sufficient to

assess the hiring practices, perceptions and attitudes of businesses

in New Zealand. The procedures used for selecting the research

sample are discussed earlier in the methodology chapter.

36

The 200 participant businesses were called by telephone. The

researcher chose the telephone survey method rather than the

postal procedure due to an anticipated better response rate.

Interviewers began the survey by asking to speak with the

personnel manager or the individual in charge of hiring. They then

briefly explained the purpose of the survey, noting the approximate

time allotment of 10 minutes. Those who agreed to participate in

the survey were then given the option of scheduling a convenient

time to complete the survey or completing the survey during the

initial phone call. The majority of those who participated in the

survey did so at the time of the initial call and a small number made

times for a call back.

The 67 questions in the survey were read by the researcher to the

participants. In section 2 of EHPPS the answers to “how hard” it

would be to hire for Job 1 and Job 2 were rounded up to the next

highest whole number; for example, “between 2 and 3” would be

considered a 3. The answers to all questions were recorded on

paper copies of the survey instrument and the results entered into

an Excel database which was then exported, after all data was

rechecked and any typing errors were removed, into a statistical

analysis package. In addition, all participants were asked at

interview if they would be willing to participate in a detailed follow-

up interview at a later date. Those who were willing had their

name and contact details recorded in a separate Excel spreadsheet.

Personal interviews

Six follow-up interviews were held with randomly selected

companies taken from the list of those who were willing to

participate in the second stage of the research. The participants

were representative of large and small, rural and city-based

businesses. Participant consent forms (see Appendix B) were

explained and discussed before the interview. If the participants

37

were willing to proceed they signed the consent slip and returned it

to the researcher.

The interviews were held at the participant’s place of work and

typically lasted from half to three-quarters of an hour. The

interviews were designed to provide some further details on

potential hiring practices and the origins of attitudes that affected

hiring behaviour. They were not intended to be used as part of the

main analysis but rather to add the substantive comments in the

discussion on employers’ attitudes and behaviour. The interviews

were recorded and transcribed then emailed back to the

participants to ensure accuracy of comments and to get final sign-

off from the participants to proceed with using the interview

material.

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were developed based on the issues

raised through the literature review.

1. Respondents would have unfavourable attitudes towards

blind and vision-impaired people.

2. That respondents’ demographic factors of age range and

gender would not be related to their attitudes towards blind

and vision-impaired people. Previous studies did not support

either of these relationships.

3. That the respondents’ education level would be related to

their attitudes towards blind and vision-impaired people.

Previous studies support this relationship.

4. It was hypothesised that the respondents’ frequency of

contact with a blind and vision-impaired person, or whether

they had a family member who had a disability, or they had

38

hired a person with a disability would be related to their

attitudes towards blind and vision-impaired people.

5. The respondents would perceive blind and vision-impaired

people as the least employable of the disability types.

6. Employers would perceive blind and vision-impaired people

as unable or unsuitable to perform particular jobs.

Analysis of data

Statistics Package for the Social Sciences version 13 (SPSS 13.0)

was used for analysing the survey data including the EHPPS and

ATBP scales. The qualitative material from the personal follow-up

interviews was used to provide some richness to the study and to

clarify issues raised in the findings for discussion purposes.

The analysis has been undertaken by utilising parametric measures

rather than non-parametric on advice received from Massey

University Statistics department. There is much debate for and

against using parametric analysis methods when the research data

is ordinal. Usually when analysing ordinal data, non-parametric

analysis is employed. In particular, opinion varies regarding

whether it is better to use parametric or non-parametric statistical

tests on the distribution of responses from Likert-type scales.

However, a growing body of researchers are employing parametric

testing, which gives a richer form of analysis.

Strictly, a Likert scale is not an interval scale and so the more

conventional non-parametric tests should be used. In practice,

however, the results of both forms of tests are very similar and so

the more familiar and easier to manipulate parametric versions are

commonly used. In justification of the parametric test, Bryman and

Cramer (2001, pp. 116--117) state that even though attitude scales,

as such, would be ordinal (i.e. calling for non-parametric tests),

parametric tests are routinely applied to such variables (assuming

39

interval-ratio scaling), arguing that the test applies to the numbers

and not to what those numbers signify.

40

C h a p t e r 4

FINDINGS

Overview of findings

A total of 200 company representatives were telephoned of which

102 agreed to participate in the telephone survey. This was an

overall 51% participation rate.

A further 44 people stated they were willing to participate in stage

two of the research, a follow-up in-depth interview. A random

selection of eight people were telephoned and invited to complete

follow-up interviews, six of whom agreed to be interviewed.

The telephone survey and personal follow-up interviews were

undertaken to test the research hypotheses (p. 29) and answer the

research questions (pp. 6--7). To achieve this aim, a number of

statistical tests were conducted on the results of both the EHPP and

the ATBP scales. The results of these analyses are as follows.

41

Participant and company description/demographics

Individual participant’s description

The gender of the participants was just about evenly mixed (see

Figure 1). However the ethnicity of the participants presented in

Figure 2 was representative of New Zealand European or Pakeha

participants (87.25%). This would appear to be congruent with the

overall country population statistics (European/Pakeha80%, Maori

14.7%, Pacific Peoples 6.5% and Asian 6.6%, Census of population

and dwellings, Statistics New Zealand, 2001) and more particularly

representative of those traditionally in managerial or positions with

decision-making responsibility.

In terms of age (see Figure 3) a small number of respondents were

aged between 20 and 29 (6.86%) as were those aged over 70 years

Female

48.04%

Male

51.96%

Figure 1: Gender of respondents

Chinese0.98%

Niuean

0.98%

NZ European or Pakeha

87.25%

NZ Maori

6.86%

Other European

3.92%

Figure 2: Ethnicity of respondents42

(3.92%). The largest age groupings of

respondents were those aged between 30 and 39 (28.43%) and

those aged between 40 and 49 (32.35%). This was followed by

those who were aged 50 to 59 (19.61%) and 60 to 69 (8.82%).

Of the total participants, 57.85% had a family member with a

disability and 42.2% did not.

Interestingly, Figure 4 shows there were a high number (50.98%) of

participants with a university/tertiary qualification. This is higher

than the 2001 Census rate of one in eight people possessing a

20-29

6.86%

30-39

28.43%

40-49

32.35%

50-59

19.61%

60-69

8.82%

70+3.92%

Not recorded

7.84%

NZ Higher School Certificate or Higher Leaving Certificate

3.92%

NZ School Certificate

22.55%

NZ Sixth Form Certificate

5.88%

NZ University Bursary or Entrance or Scholarship

8.82%

50.98%

Tertiary qualification

Figure 4: Educational level of respondents

Figure 3: Age of respondents

43

university qualification. However, this may represent the

employers’ requirement for human resource or senior staff with

hiring responsibilities to have acquired tertiary qualifications.

Business/company description

Participating businesses came from both rural and urban locations:

78.4% were from urban locations and 21.6% from rural areas.

Businesses varied in size (based on

employee numbers). Figure 5 shows that approximately equal

numbers were surveyed in the small/micro, medium and large-sized

businesses.

Businesses were representative of a wide cross section of

categories as per the ANZSIC standard. The most predominant

business/industry category represented in the research sample was

manufacturing (17.7%), followed by retail trade (11.8%) and

property and business services (10.8%). The following table

provides a detailed breakdown of the business types represented in

the study.

Table 1: Australian & New Zealand Standard Industry Classification of businesses in the research sample

ANZSIC classificationNo. of participant companies

Percent

Valid

Accommodation9 8.8

Agriculture 2 2.0 Cafes and Restaurants 4 3.9 Communication Services 5 4.9 Construction 8 7.8

Large

31.37%

Medium 33.33%

Micro

14.71%

Small

20.59%

Figure 5: Business size

44

Cultural and Recreational Services1 1.0

Education 7 6.9 Electricity 4 3.9 Forestry and Fishing 1 1.0 Gas and Water Supply 2 2.0 Government Administration and

Defence 1 1.0

Health and Community Services1 1.0

Manufacturing 17 16.6 Personal and Other Services

7 6.9

Property and Business Services 11 10.7

Retail Trade 12 11.8 Transport and Storage 7 6.9 Wholesale Trade 3 2.9 Total 102 100.0

45

Experiences of hiring employees with disabilities

Surprisingly there was an exact 50%/50% split between

respondents who had either hired or not hired people with

disabilities (see Figure 6).

Of those who had hired people with a disability, the majority

(88.24%) had hired between one and five people (see Figure 7).

Yes 50.00%

No

50.00%

Unsure

3.92% 11-15

1.96%

1-5 88.24%

16+

1.96%

6-10

3.92%

Figure 6: Percentage of respondents who have previously hired employees with disabilities

Figure 7: Number of disabled staff hired by respondents who have previously hired disabled staff

46

Those people who had hired a person or persons with a disability

were overwhelmingly (96.08%) pleased to have hired them (see

Figure 8).

Again, there was an almost even split between those participants

who had made and those who had not made some modifications to

No 3.92%

Yes 96.08%

Not recorded

1.96%

No 47.06%

Yes

50.98%

Figure 8: Respondents’ satisfaction with having hired an employee with a disability

Figure 9: Number of respondents who have made modifications for employees with disabilities

47

work environments or work practices for employees with

disabilities (see Figure 9).

48

Employer Hiring Practices and Perceptions Survey (EHPP)

Employers were asked to provide the name of a “job in your

company that most often is open and needs external applicants”.

With this job in mind, they were then asked to consider “how hard

do you think it would be to hire a person for this job” if the person

has the following disability (14 disability types in total). Employers

were then asked to respond on a five-point Likert-style scale of 1 --

impossible, 2 -- difficult, 3 -- moderately difficult, 4 -- easy, or 5 -- no

problem at all. Responses were recorded by circling the

appropriate number on the scale for each question. Unsure

responses were not entered into the data analysis.

Employers were also asked to “think of the second most often filled

job in your company.” As in job 1, employers were then asked to

consider “how hard do you think it would be to hire a person for

this job” if the person has the following disability. Responses to this

second set of questions were recorded in the same manner.

Employability ratings for jobs most and second most frequently

filled

T-tests were conducted to assess if there were significant

differences in employability ratings for jobs most and second most

frequently filled, i.e. did employers respond differently to the

questions asked regarding employability of people with different

disabilities for job 1 and job 2. T-tests test the null hypothesis that

two populations are equal. The null hypothesis is where the

difference between means is some specified value. In this case the

null hypothesis is that the difference is zero or p> 0.05. The t-test

(see Table 2) proved there was no significant difference (the

significance was more than 0.05) in the results for jobs 1 and job 2.

Therefore the data recorded in response to the questions for both

jobs were combined to create a single measure for each disability

type.

49

Table 2: Disability employability ratings paired samples test for

jobs 1 and 2

Pair Number Disability pairs t df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 Mild IH - Mild IH 1.933 99 .056Pair 2 Mod/sev IH - Mod/sev IH

-.729100

.468

Pair 3 Blind - Blind -.786 98 .434Pair 4 Deaf - Deaf

.332100

.741

Pair 5 Mobility - Mobility-.840

100

.403

Pair 6 Back - Back -1.223

100

.224

Pair 7 Arthritis - Arthritis -1.285

98 .202

Pair 8 Mental illness - Mental illness.164 89 .870

Pair 9 Emotional illness - Emotional illness1.029 92 .306

Pair 10 Brain Injury - Brain Injury-.111

101

.912

Pair 11 Heart disease - Heart disease -1.084

100

.281

Pair 12 Respiratory disease - Respiratory disease

-1.821

99 .072

Pair 13 Cancer - Cancer -1.943

94 .055

Pair 14 HIV positive - HIV positive .000 94 1.000

Disabilities perceived by employers to be more employable than

others

Mean ratings provide an indication of what the average is for Likert

scale questions. The mean ratings were calculated in this study in

order to understand the employability of different disability types

for those jobs frequently recruited from external applicants (i.e.

jobs 1 and 2 combined).

The results presented in Figure 10 clearly demonstrate that

employers thought it would be easier to hire persons with a cancer

diagnosis, heart impairment, or living with HIV for the job(s) within

their businesses. These same employers also indicated that it

would be more difficult to hire persons with moderate or severe

intellectual handicap or persons who are blind for the same

50

position(s). This result is totally congruent with the Gilbride et al.

study (2000). The following graph illustrates the employability

across all disability types. The higher the mean, the more

employable participants believed the people with that particular

disability to be.

Cance

r

HIV p

ositiv

e

Heart

dise

ase

Respi

rato

ry d

iseas

e

Arthrit

is

Back

Emot

iona

l illn

ess

Deaf

Mild

inte

llect

ual h

andi

cap

Men

tal il

lnes

s

Mob

ility

Brain

Inju

ry

Blind

Mod

/sev

ere

inte

llect

ual h

andi

cap

Disability categories

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

Mea

n s

core

3.74 3.79

3.393.63

1.88

2.68

2.24

3.07

2.78

2.18

2.67

1.431.39

2.24

Figure 10: Employers employability rating for each disability type

Comparisons between disability groups

A Levene test is used to test if samples or groups have equal

variances. Equal variances of means across samples is called

homogeneity of variance. Some statistical tests, such as the

analysis of variance, assume that variances are equal across groups

or samples. The Levene test can therefore be used to verify that

51

assumption. The Levene test followed by one-way ANOVA was used

to assess differences in employability between different disability

types and within disability types for two jobs.

These tests (see Table 3) showed that (using the mean disability

score as a variable) the Levene test for homogeneity of variances is

significant (p < 0.05) which means the

52

population variables for each group are not equal.

Table 3: Test of homogeneity of variance

Mean disability score

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

10.994 13 1391 .000

The subsequent ANOVA test shows the F-probability value is p<

0.05 indicating significance and that the null hypothesis can be

rejected, and therefore the mean disability score is different for all

disability groups (f (13, 1404) = 15.09, p = 0.000 see table 4).

However, this does not tell if blindness is different from any other

group.

Table 4: ANOVA to test hypothesis of mean disability score between disability groups and within groups

Mean disability score

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between groups 865.245 13 66.557 55.095 .000Within groups 1680.392 1391 1.208 Total 2545.638 1404

To establish whether a disability group is significantly different

from blindness, a post hoc test was conducted to discover where

the variance or significance lies.

A Dunnett test which is similar to the Tukey test is used only if a set

of comparisons are being made to one particular group. A Dunnett

test is used to compare each group to a reference category or

control. Therefore, in this case, disability groups are compared to

blind and vision-impairedness. Thus a Dunnett T3 post hoc test was

utilised (testing blindness and vision impairment against all other

disability types) using the mean disability score as the dependent

variable in the multiple comparisons. This test in Table 5 shows

that the p value associated with the comparison between blindness

and all other disabilities other than moderate to severe intellectual

53

handicap is less than 0.05 and thus is significant. This finding

would indicate that all disability groups other than moderate to

severe intellectual handicap differ significantly from one another.

This means that the moderate to severe intellectual disability

group is most similar to the blindness disability group.

54

Table 5: Dunnett T3 post hoc test, testing blindness and vision impairment against all other disabilities

Dependent variable: Mean disability score Dunnett T3

(I) Disability type (J) Disability type

Mean Difference (I-J)

Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Blindness (visually impaired)

Mild intellectual handicap-.7566(*) .1250 .000 -1.196 -.317

Moderate/severe intellectual handicap

.0392 .09401.000

-.290 .368

Deaf/Hard of hearing-1.2647(*) .1290 .000 -1.718 -.811

Mobility (wheelchair) -.7892(*) .1437 .000 -1.295 -.284 Back limitation -1.3705(*) .1321 .000 -1.835 -.906 Arthritis -1.6634(*) .1286 .000 -2.116 -1.211 Mental illness -.8080(*) .1249 .000 -1.247 -.369 Emotional illness -1.2111(*) .1283 .000 -1.662 -.760 Brain injury -.4559(*) .1084 .004 -.836 -.076 Heart disease -2.1873(*) .1355 .000 -2.664 -1.711 Respiratory disease -2.0084(*) .1368 .000 -2.490 -1.527 Cancer -2.4186(*) .1383 .000 -2.906 -1.932 HIV positive -2.3057(*) .1516 .000 -2.840 -1.771

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

What types of disabilities are preferred for which jobs?

Further tests were undertaken to assess the influence of particular

job categories (based on the Australian and New Zealand Standard

Industry Classification of Occupations Standard, 2005) on the

employability of blind and vision-impaired people on the EHPP scale

results. In this case the Levene test for homogeneity of variances

indicates it is significant (0.000, p< 0.05) and the population

variances are not equal for each group. The ANOVA F-probability

value (0.016) is less than 0.05 which means the null hypothesis is

rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. The alternative

is that there is a significant difference in the employability of blind

and vision-impaired people into particular occupations. The

significance has been established by using a Dunnett T3 post hoc

test. The difference occurs between professionals and machinery

operators and drivers, and professionals and labourers (see full test

results in Appendix D). The following graph (see Figure 11)

55

illustrates the job categories and perceived employability of blind

and vision-impaired people in those roles.

Man

ager

s

Cleric

al &

adm

inis

trativ

e work

ers

Profe

ssio

nals

Comm

unity &

per

sonal

ser

vice

work

ers

Technic

ians

& trad

e work

ers

Sales

work

ers

Laboure

rs

Mac

hiner

y oper

ators

& d

river

s

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

Mea

n e

mp

loya

bili

ty o

f b

lind

peo

ple

sc

ore

1.11.1

1.3

1.7

1.51.4

1.6

2.0

Job category

Figure 11: Employers’ rating of blind people’s employability by job

category

Employment potential of blind and vision-impaired people

‘Lastly blindness and vision-impairedness was compared with and

against all other disability types. The homogeneity of variance is

significant at 0.000 which indicates that the population variances

for each disability group are not equal. The ANOVA test (0.000)

again is significant as it is less than p< 0.05 and means the null

hypothesis is rejected and it can be surmised that some or all of the

other disability groups are different from blind and vision-

56

impairedness regards employability potential. Two tests Dunnett t

(2-sided) and Dunnett T3 were undertaken to determine where the

significance lay. Both tests indicated that all other disability groups

other than moderate/severe intellectual handicap disability were

significantly different from the blind and vision-impaired in terms of

employability.

Attitudes Towards Blind Persons (ATBP) scale

The second part of the survey instrument examined participants’

attitudes towards blind and vision-impaired people. The ATBP scale

(see Appendix A) was the instrument used.

Participants were asked a series of questions or items on a scale

representing statements that suggested differences (or when

rejected, similarities) between blind and non-blind people. The

items depict two types of statements, i.e. characteristics of blind

people (e.g. personal, social, intellectual, emotional) and workplace

treatment modalities (e.g. workplace social integration, ability to

perform work duties, safety, etc.).

Respondents either agreed or disagreed with each item on a six-

point Likert scale. The scale ranged from 1 = Strongly agree, 2 =

Agree, 3 = Not sure but tend to agree, 4 = Not sure but tend to

disagree, 5 = Disagree, 6 = Strongly disagree. The scale is a

“forced choice” scale as there is no neutral response opportunity

provided in the scale. Responses were recorded by circling the

appropriate number on the scale for each question.

Scoring the ATBP had to be undertaken carefully as approximately

a third of the questions were worded positively with the remainder

worded negatively. The first step required was to reverse the

scores of all the positively phrased questions. After this was

completed all of the responses were summed to give a total score

for each participant. The scores on the scale can range from 16 to

57

96. The higher the score, the more favourable the attitudes are

towards blind people.

The results for the ATBP scale indicate the majority of employers

have positive attitudes towards blind people. This is illustrated in

the following bar and line graphs (see Figures 12 and 13). The mid

point on the scale (between 16 and 96) is 56 points. Therefore, for

those participants who scored 57 or above their attitudes were

considered more positive and for those who scored 55 or below

their attitudes were considered more negative. The overall scores

on the ATBP scale indicate that 76% (78 participants) of employers

had more positive attitudes towards blind people and 25% (24

participants) had more negative attitudes. The spread of results for

all participants is illustrated in the line graph (Figure 13) on the

following page.

40 60 80

Total score on attitudes to blindness scale

0

5

10

15

20

Figure 12: Employers attitudes’ towards blind people by frequency of

respondent responses

58

Respondents

100

80

60

40

20

To

tal s

core

on

att

itu

des

to

blin

dn

ess

sca

leP

ositive attitudes N

egative

attitud

es

Figure 13: Employers’ attitudes towards blind people by respondent

However there were some items in the ATBP scale that were of

concern to employers more than any other on the scale. These

included perceived issues for blind people regarding safety, the

possible high costs of workplace adaptations and that blind people

would not be as productive as sighted employees. Figure 14

illustrates the mean scores for each attitude question.

59

Couldn't

rely

on a

get

ting to

work

on ti

me

Don't re

ally

wan

t to w

ork; u

nlikel

y to

sta

y lo

ng

More

like

ly to

hav

e ab

sence

s

Can't

man

age

to w

ork a

40

hour wee

k

More

eas

ily u

pset

As su

cces

sful a

nd am

bitious

Could n

ot use

a c

ompute

r

Just

as

relia

ble a

nd pro

ductiv

e

Staff

would n

ot know h

ow to tr

eat o

r rea

ct

Just

as

safe

and re

liable

Couldn't

have

a guid

e dog fo

r H&S re

asons

Couldn't

work o

r get

aro

und with

out hel

p

Would

n't m

anag

e sy

stem

s an

d pro

gram

mes

Not as

product

ive

Cost o

f adap

tatio

ns to

o much

Too dan

gerous

or unsa

fe

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Mea

n s

core

5.234.93

4.22 4.274.22

5.06

3.753.42

4.89 5.075.3

4.664.38

2.853.24 3.28

Scale items

Figure 14: Respondents’ score on each attitude scale item

The influence of variables on attitude

Once the ATBP scores were calculated, testing was undertaken to

see if some or all of the variables had an effect on the total score of

the ATBP. The Levene t-test was used to test for equity of variance.

If the equity of variance is greater than 0.05 the variances are

equal. If the differences are significant, the t-test would need to be

less than or equal to 0.05 for equity of means. The variables tested

included the following:

whether an employer had previously hired a person with

disabilities

whether employers had a family member with a disability

an employer’s gender

60

The results for each variance (Table 6) indicate that equal variances

can be assumed as the variances are greater than 0.05. However

the variables have not had a significant influence on the outcome of

the ATBP as the test for equity of means are in all cases more than

0.05. For example, for previously hired a person with a disability

the variance is t (df) = 0.98, p = 0.326.

Table 6: Influence of variables on attitudes

Variables F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Previously hired person with a disability Total score on Attitudes to Blind persons scale

Equal variances assumed

.186 .667 .988 100 .326

Equal variances not assumed

.988 96.290 .326

Family member with a disabilityTotal score on Attitudes to Blind persons scale

Equal variances assumed

.848 .359 1.614 100 .110

Equal variances assumed

1.559 78.066 .123

GenderTotal score on Attitudes to Blind persons scale

Equal variances assumed

.204 .652 1.638 100 .105

Equal variances assumed

1.639 99.696 .104

Other tests undertaken included one-way ANOVA tests which

assessed the variables (age and education level) to see if there were

differences on the total scores of attitudes to blindness.

The ANOVA tests undertaken in this case looked for non-significant

scores on the test for homogeneity of variances (greater than 0.05).

If it were found that the significance was greater than 0.05 a

Tukey’s post hoc test would then be used.

The results for the different age brackets indicated that the

significance was greater than 0.05 on the homogeneity of variance

61

test (0.072), which indicates confidence in that the population

variance for each age grouping is approximately equal. However,

the ANOVA F-probability value (0.159) is greater than 0.05.

Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted, which means there is no

significant difference because of age on the individuals’ attitudes

towards blind people. The same result was found for education

levels as the Levene homogeneity of variance test (0.863) and the

ANOVA (0.121) were both greater than 0.05.

Additional representative graphs and inferential tables for all tests

undertaken can be found in Appendix D.

Hypotheses findings

1. It was hypothesised that respondents would have

unfavourable attitudes towards blind and vision-impaired

people. This hypothesis was not supported by this study as

the attitudes were mostly positive.

2. It was hypothesised that respondents’ demographic factors of

age range and gender would not be related to their attitudes

towards blind and vision-impaired people. Previous studies

did not support either of these relationships. Both the gender

and age range portions of the hypothesis were supported

which means they are not related to attitudes towards blind

and vision-impaired people.

3. It was hypothesised the respondents’ education level would

be related to their attitudes towards blind and vision-impaired

people. Previous studies support this relationship. In this

current study, however, it was not established that there was

a direct relationship between educational level attained and

attitudes towards blind people.

4. It was hypothesised that the respondents frequency of contact

with a blind and vision-impaired person, or whether they had

62

a family member who had a disability, or they had hired a

person with a disability, would be related to their attitudes

towards blind and vision-impaired people. Previous studies

indicated that there was a strong relationship between these

variables and attitudes towards disabled people. This study

did not support this hypothesis.

5. It was hypothesised that the respondents perceive blind and

vision-impaired people as the least employable of the

disability types. This study strongly supported this

hypothesis. Blindness or a moderate to severe intellectual

handicap were ranked as almost equal lowest of all disability

types employers felt they could employ in their companies.

6. It was hypothesised that employers perceive blind and vision-

impaired people as unable or unsuitable to perform particular

jobs. This hypothesis is supported by this current study. In

particular, those jobs of machinery operators and drivers,

along with labourers, were perceived as the least suitable for

blind and vision-impaired people. Conversely, traditional jobs

related to management or clerical work were viewed as most

suitable occupations for blind and vision-impaired people.

Summary

Generally employers demonstrated positive attitudes towards blind

and vision-impaired people. However, this was in total contrast to

potentially employing them in positions vacant in their own

companies. This finding was concurrent with the conclusions from

a number of disability attitude studies reviewed by Wilgosh and

Skaret (1987) and Hernandez (2000). The majority of employers

stated that blind people would be the most difficult to employ, along

with moderate to severe intellectually handicapped people.

63

Employers had three main concerns regarding employing blind

people: safety on the job, productivity concerns and the costs

associated with workplace adaptations.

The study also highlighted particular jobs that employers felt blind

people could not undertake. These included operating machinery

and labouring. This is in contrast to many other possible

occupations, especially professional occupations.

When variables (age, gender, education or whether they had

previous contact with people with disabilities, etc.) were considered

as possible influences on attitudes or hiring decisions, there was

little that could be linked to attitudes. These results are illustrated

in the graphs included in Appendix D.

64

C h a p t e r 5

DISCUSSION

Overview of problem

Even today, when leisure-time interests exert increasing influence in our lives,

employment is, for most adults, the primary source of not only income, but also

identity and interactions, if not satisfactions. Unfortunately, for most adults

with disabilities employment represents only a yet-to-be-fulfilled hope, a close

but inaccessible goal, a daily reminder that they are not among the majority

(McCarthy, 1988, p. 246).

McCarthy’s opening sentences to his article on attitudes that affect

employment opportunities for persons with disabilities is as true

today as it was when he wrote it in 1988. This is truest for blind

and vision-impaired people who have found (and continue to find) it

hard to gain and retain employment, in comparison with other

disability groups and the wider total working-age population. The

unemployment rate for blind people is approximately four times

that of the general working-age population and two and a half times

that of the overall disabled working age population.

This scenario is not unique to New Zealand. Unger (2002) found

that the employment rate for people with disabilities in the USA has

increased very little since the 1980s even with the introduction of

the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990). In addition Gilbride et

al. (2000), who studied employers’ perceptions and hiring practices,

discovered that blind people were ranked by employers as the least

able to be employed in their companies, on a par with people with

moderate to severe mental ‘retardation’. Dench, Meager and

Morris (1996) found in the United Kingdom that 51.2% of

employers reported it would be impossible to employ people with a

seeing difficulty and Simpson et al. (2005) who surveyed working-

65

age blind and vision-impaired people in Canada, found that 49%

were unemployed.

Few, if any, international studies exist regarding the attitudes of

employers towards employing blind and vision-impaired people as

an individual disability group. Those studies that have been done,

have included blindness as part of wider examinations of employer

attitudes towards the disability sector as a whole. The only New

Zealand study (Waby, 2003) that examines employer’s attitudes

toward employing blind and vision-impaired people, found that 75%

of employers had never employed a blind or vision-impaired person.

Employers gave a number of reasons for this being the case,

including not being able to do the job because the person could not

see, the potential cost of adaptations and not being able to comply

with health and safety regulations. These reasons appear to be

quite common internationally with Unger (2002), Hernandez (2000)

and others finding the main reasons for not employing people with

disabilities are unfounded concerns about potential absenteeism,

low productivity, high staff turnover, accommodation costs, health

and safety, and dependability or dedication to the job. This is

despite many studies that have identified disabled people as having

above-average work performance, above-average attendance and

exceptionally good safety records (Unger, 2002). Unger and other

researchers (Hernandez, 2000) also noted that the findings across a

wide cross-section of interviewees indicated that employers who

have had previous contact and experience with workers with

disabilities are more willing to employ such persons.

Blind and vision-impaired people, as one of a number of disability

types, face negative attitudes from individuals without disabilities

(Katz, Hass & Bailey, 1998; Livneh, 1982; Livneh, 1998; Chism &

Satcher, 1997; Gething & Wheeler, 1992; Hernandez, 2000) and

even those who work in helping roles with individuals with

disabilities (e.g. rehabilitation nurses, teachers, etc.) hold negative

66

attitudes. These attitudes have been shown to lead to negative

rehabilitation and educational outcomes (Katz et al., 1998, Levy et

al., 1993).

Blind people themselves have long talked of the difficulties they

face in obtaining employment (Crothall, 2004; Barclay, 2003; La

Grow, 2004; Simpson et al., 2005). The main difficulty blind people

say they face is that of discrimination by employers. Some appear

to be attitudinal responses and some are based on ignorance of

what blind and vision-impaired people are capable of. Crothall

(2004), who undertook research of New Zealand blind and vision-

impaired people, found the study participants identified five key

barriers to employment. The top barriers identified by all

participants in the study were negative attitudes and ignorance of

employers.

Attitudes, while they provide us with the means to summarise and

understand the complex information in the environment we are

faced with every day, can also have negative effects on individuals

and groups. In the case of people with disabilities, employer

attitudes have tended (in the main) to be negative towards disabled

people gaining employment. This particularly affects blind and

vision-impaired people who have, as discovered in a number of

studies (Gilbride et al., 2000; Bascand, 1987; Jobability.com, 2000;

Chism & Satcher, 1997; Levy et al., 1993), been perceived as

amongst the hardest to employ of all the people with disabilities.

Understanding attitudes which lead to employment barriers is

important and will contribute to our understanding of employers’

concerns. It will also assist in the development of programmes to

counteract negative hiring practices which significantly impact on

the blind and vision-impaired seeking, gaining and retaining

employment.

67

Previous studies discussed in the literature suggest blind and

vision-impaired people face significant barriers to employment.

These barriers, some of which are the result of negative attitudes

and others as a result of ignorance, are in many instances

generated by employers. This supports the findings of the current

study and suggests that employer attitudes and perceptions must

change in order for there to be significant change.

Discussion on findings

Employer attitudes towards blind and vision-impaired people

In general, the total study sample held favourable attitudes towards

blind and vision-impaired people (76%). This result is different

from earlier studies which assessed attitudes towards individual

disability groups, but was congruent with more global views

towards ‘the disabled’ as a total group. However, this study also

found that blind and vision-impaired people (alongside moderate to

severe intellectually handicapped people) are less favoured by

employers (in comparison with other disability groups) as potential

employees across all industries. This paradoxical result is

congruent with other studies reported by Hernandez (2000) and

“these findings suggest a thin veneer of employer acceptance of

workers with disabilities” (p. 3). Further, Gibson and Groeneweg

(1986) concluded that while the majority of employers may agree

with the idea of hiring people with disabilities, this agreement does

not necessarily transfer to a willingness to consider people with

disabilities as job applicants for their own company.

One possible reason for this result in the current study is that

employers do indeed have positive attitudes towards blind people

but when it comes to employing them they are unable to transfer

this attitude to their hiring practices, due to ignorance about blind

people’s abilities, and the roles blind people can actually undertake

or indeed what aids are available for the blind to complete tasks

which ordinarily require sight. When employers make employment

68

assessments they may sometimes assess what is “possible” from

their own eyes, i.e. “can a blind person do this job – when I close my

eyes I can not see the computer screen therefore they (blind and

vision-impaired) could not use a computer”. One employer in this

study said:

Yes, definitely there are a lot of things, e.g. that a blind person could do that I

would think would be impossible because I am thinking of what would happen

if I couldn’t see. The technology now is that they certainly could do an

administrative job and probably much more than that. I wouldn’t have a clue

as I am too busy in my every day-to-day stuff in trying to understand that.

A second possible reason for the difference between attitude and

the potential for hiring blind and vision-impaired people is that up

to 76% of employers answered the attitude questions in such a way

as to appear non-judgemental or non-prejudiced towards people

with vision disabilities. This is called “social desirability response

bias” (SDB) or sometimes “faking good” (discussed in Limitations to

this research, p. 62).

A third reason may be that employers truly believe the myths about

blind people and, as a result, are concerned that blind people will

be unsafe, will require costly adaptations to the workplace, are less

productive and unable to undertake particular tasks or manage

company systems and programmes; all of which override

employers’ genuinely positive attitudes towards blind and vision-

impaired people. One employer reinforced this by saying that:

We do have to be careful with disabilities because we are a manufacturing

operation; there are a lot of hazards. We are quite conscious of safety. In the

administration area having a blind employee would be fine for us, I could see

us working around that but around the manufacturing area it would be too

risky for us to employ someone who was blind. With the health and safety risks

to us now we couldn’t put someone blind or vision-impaired down beside our

machinery.

69

Holding stereotypical views about people with disabilities (and, in

this case, blind people) is not new. Hunt and Hunt (2000) stated

that “negative attitudes are believed to result in and reinforce

discriminatory, biased, and stereotypical responses toward people

with disabilities” (p. 269). Unger (2002) reviewed many studies of

employers’ attitudes towards disabled people and found:

Employers have unfounded concerns about workers with disabilities in many

areas, including productivity, absenteeism, turnover, and interpersonal

situations on the job, and unfounded fears about costs, including

accommodations and increases in insurance rates. These concerns are

unfounded in that many respondents are surveyed about their perceptions of

persons with disabilities and may not have had direct experience working with

or supervising employees with disabilities (p. 7).

Unger (2002) also noted that in contrast to these stereotypical

views and mythological beliefs held by employers, employer ratings

in some studies have indicated that employees with disabilities have

average or above average performance, safety records and

attendance. For example in 1958 DuPont assessed the differences

in job performance amongst its disabled and non-disabled workers.

They found that their disabled workers were as good as or better

than the non-disabled workers on the measures of safety,

attendance and job performance.

The effects of variables on employer attitudes and perceptions

A number of variables such as age, gender, education level and

previous contact with people with disabilities or having previously

hired people with disabilities were tested as potential influences on

attitudes. All of the variables in this study were found to have no

significant influence on attitudes. This is in contrast to other

studies which identified that, of all the variables, previous contact

with people with disabilities directly influences attitudes positively.

In some studies gender and educational level had some positive

influence as well. However, Yuker (1994) said “when there is

70

convergence (e.g. in the preponderance of data indicating that most

demographic variables are unrelated to attitudes toward people

with disabilities) the results should be taken seriously” (p. 4). An

examination of why the variables had no influence in this case has

been undertaken; however, the reasons are not obvious. Some

reasons may include:

1. The size of the sample may be too small to allow realistic

assessment of the effect of variables on attitude.

2. That the variables identified have little influence and it is

some other “undiscovered” variable or combination of

variables that may have the significant influence. It is also

unclear from other studies if demographic variables have a

significant effect on attitudes, as many studies contradict

each other. Yuker (1994) discussed the influence of variables

on attitudes and said, in relation to prior contact or

knowledge of people with disabilities, that “while there are

minimal data, theory leads to the prediction that knowledge

about disabilities is either unrelated or negatively related to

attitudes towards disabled people, because it emphasizes dis-

abilities rather than abilities” (p. 6).

3. That there are wider “societal” and “cultural” norms or

influences that impact on attitude or behaviour or both.

4. That attitude is not necessarily a predictor of behaviour – a

view held by a number of researchers (Hernandez, 2000;

Unger, 2002; Bohner and Wänke, 2002).

How attitudes are formed – employers’ view

Those interviewed in the second stage of this study were asked

about their attitudes and specifically how they were formed and

what, if anything, influenced their behaviour. Some had little, if

any, understanding of how they formed attitudes; others indicated

71

that attitudes were learned from parents (how they were “brought

up”), friends, relatives or people they relate to on a day-to-day basis

and general community socialisation. Others said that mass media

(TV being the biggest influence), education and interaction with

people with disabilities had an influence on perceptions they

formed or behaviours they exhibited. Yuker (1994) and Levy et al.,

(1993) also confirmed the role of media in influencing attitudes.

The workplace was also identified as an environment where

behaviours and attitudes were influenced. One study participant

said:

By experience, interacting with people, by talking to them the first few seconds

of meeting and summing the person up and then developing that by spending

time with them. The first time I saw Josh (a blind member of staff) he had his

nose glued to the computer screen – I was taken aback.

Interestingly one participant said that “we often categorise people

(particularly the disabled) into one overall disability category,

rather than individuals or individuals with different disabilities.

This might affect how we hire people I suppose.” Another

72

participant discussed how their company came to hire a blind

person:

If you had come here a year ago we wouldn’t have employed anyone with a

sight disability. We didn’t think that blind people could ever undertake the

work we did so they were never considered as potential employees. Then we

were approached by the local polytechnic who were promoting their recent

graduates. We had a particular skills need to fill and that style of skill was hard

to find, we took him (blind person) on a short-term contract and we were told

we didn’t have to take him on permanently. That was how it happened; we took

him on a year’s trial, the rest is history.

This company’s experience illustrates that prior to being

approached by the local polytechnic, the employer did not know

what roles or tasks blind people could undertake, that a blind

person could be a suitable employee and that blind people were an

untapped labour source available to them.

The dichotomy between employer hiring practices and attitudes

Employers’ attitudes towards blind and vision-impaired people

appear to be overtly positive on the one hand and covertly negative

on the other. Certainly in this current study there is a clear

distinction between general attitudes towards the blind (which are

positive) and potential hiring practices (which are mainly negative).

Katz et al. (1988, chap. 4) suggest that attitudes to disabled and

other marginalised groups can be contradictory, i.e. a combination

of aversion or hostility on the one hand and sympathy and

compassion on the other. Eccles and Six’s research (cited in

Bohner & Wänke. 2002) also explains the dichotomy between

attitudes and behaviour where altruistic-based behaviour is less

affected by attitudes, whereas more self-centred attitudes or

beliefs, such as towards illicit drug use, were highly correlated to

behaviour.

Katz et al. provide further support for his view through a review of

the literature where they state the studies of Myerson, and Gonick

73

(1953) concluded that public, verbalised attitudes towards those

who had disabilities were favourable on the average but that the

deeper universalised feelings were frequently rejecting.

Katz et al. (1988) conducted a number of experiments to explore

people’s attitudes and behavioural reactions to individuals with

disabilities. The pattern of results indicates that reactions

(behaviour) can be extremely favourable or unfavourable depending

on the situation. Further, Katz et al. suggests that the results are

consistent with four ideas:

1. “the sentiments of many people about persons who are disabled tend to

be ambivalent rather than unambiguously hostile or friendly;

2. the pro and anti attitudes tend to be rooted to some extent in two

general value orientations, individualism of the Protestant ethic variety

and humanitarianism;

3. stimulus events that make salient one’s ambivalence about disabled

people create a state of psychic tension; and

4. efforts at tension reduction may take a form of extreme behaviour

toward members of the group in question” (pp. 56--57).

Given the findings of the aforementioned research, it is not unusual

that the responses received in the current study were overtly

positive and covertly negative. These conclusions go some way to

explaining why employers did not transfer their positive opinions on

blind people as a group into individual positive employment

decisions regarding blind and vision-impaired people.

Explaining employers’ attitudes

Many experts agree that the continuing unemployment of people with

disabilities is due in large part to the fact that potential employers and co-

workers still maintain negative attitudes toward them as a group. These

negative attitudes appear to be rooted in a lack of knowledge about people with

disabilities, as well as the perpetuation of erroneous stereotypes about them

(Hunt & Hunt, 2004).

74

Many studies indicate that disabled people’s attributes such as job

qualifications and skills, attendance, punctuality and social skills

are important to employers (Yuker, 1994). Similarly this current

study found some reasons why employers felt they could not employ

blind and vision-impaired people for jobs in their companies. The

key reasons were issues or concerns with health and safety, the

cost of adaptations, productivity concerns and perceived inability to

manage company-specific programmes and systems; all of these

rather than personal characteristics.

Employers also held very traditional or stereotypical views about

the types of jobs for which blind people would be suitable and least

suitable. Not surprisingly, manual jobs such as machinery

operators and labourers were perceived as the least suitable for

blind people and desk jobs such as management, clerical and

administrative jobs were perceived as suitable.

Hunt and Hunt (2004) discuss employers’ negative attitudes and

perceptions regarding people with disabilities. In particular they

highlight the erroneous “often negative stereotypes” (p. 4). Add to

these negative perceptions “the fact that people with disabilities

can evoke negative emotional reactions in others, such as pity or

fear (Harris & Associates, 1991) and it becomes clearer why

individuals in this group have difficulty integrating into the

workforce” (p. 4). These negative perceptions were evident in the

second-stage interviews, where one participant said:

“Yes, fear! That once it got down to the nitty gritty of actually employing

someone like that – alarm bells would ring, asking yourself “how would I do

this?” Not so much as having to deal with that position but having to deal with

that person.”

Fishbein and Ajzen (cited in Hunt & Hunt, 2004) developed a

framework for attitude formation in 1980. Using this framework,

researchers Lee and Rodda (1994), asserted that “negative

75

attitudes toward people with disabilities appear to stem from

faulty information in the belief system about disability and about

people who have disabilities” (cited in Hunt & Hunt, 2004, p. 4).

This contention supports the ideas of Katz et al. (1988) on

attitudes and behavioural reactions to individuals with disabilities.

The thinking of Fishbein (1971), Levy et al. (1993) and Katz et al.

(1988) all contribute to explaining the negative employer

perception, the subsequent unwillingness to employ blind and

vision-impaired people and why the stereotypes held continue to

limit the employment opportunities and choices of blind people.

Participants in the second stage of the study discussed the

stereotypes and barriers experienced by blind and vision-impaired

people. However they chose to see these concerns (safety,

productivity, adaptation costs, etc.) as part of making pragmatic

employment decisions, rather than barriers.

Employment barriers

A number of studies have been conducted on employment barriers

experienced by the blind and vision-impaired. Many of these (La

Grow, 2002, 2004; Crothall, 2004; Waby, 2003; Barclay, 2003) have

identified the key barriers e.g. attitudes of employers, such as

discrimination or ignorance. This present study has researched the

attitudes of employers towards employing blind and vision-impaired

people. While on the attitude scale employers presented as having

positive attitudes, their behaviour relating to employment of blind

people negated these positive attitudes. When examining the

negative employment perceptions it was discovered the main

‘barriers’ (employment concerns) from the employers’ point of view

were:

1. Health and safety – it would be too dangerous and unsafe and

OSH regulations were too restrictive and costly if breached.

76

2. Cost of Adaptations to the work place or work processes – this

was based on no knowledge of what kind of adaptations

would be required or the associated costs. Many studies have

indicated costs are usually $500 or less. The United States

Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy

(2004) has shown that 15% of accommodations cost nothing,

51% cost between $1 and $500, 12% cost between $501 and

$1000, and 22% cost more that $1,000.

3. Not as productive as sighted employees – this is a common

misconception generally found in other studies (Unger, 2002).

4. Wouldn’t manage workplace systems or programmes – this is

based on ignorance on the behalf of the employer and is

usually related to not knowing about available special aids

and individual capabilities of blind and vision-impaired

people. For example there are several computer programmes

readily available to blind people. These convert all text into

synthesised speech; all the operator need do is wear a pair of

headphones.

These concerns about blind and vision-impaired people, which are

founded on myths and stereotypes, are encapsulated in the

following statements made by employers who were interviewed.

There might be another reason which might be a stumbling block and that is, if

the employer was to think – “look that person that person with an impairment

is going to require close supervision over a length of time then that is going to

take that person out of active capacity as well and they won’t be quite as

productive while they are teaching the vision-impaired person”. In this day and

age, especially for the last two or three years where the pressure has been on,

it has become almost a rule of thumb that “I don’t want to employ someone

who is going to absorb lots of time to teach them”.

Retail probably; it is hard to say about the job because with trucks coming in

and the yard can be very busy at times; it would be a hard situation for a blind

person dealing with the amount of traffic that goes through the yard.

77

I think a lot of it would be fear, you see someone walking towards you that is

either a dwarf or has a Seeing Eye dog or whatever and you automatically

become fearful as you don’t know what it is all about. Therefore you are not

able to deal with disability despite whatever thoughts you might have about

people with disabilities in general.

Take for example if a person was working in our office, we have the

receptionist at the front, and if she goes away and if someone came in and the

blind person was sitting at my desk they wouldn’t be aware that there was a

client waiting; the blind person wouldn’t know that he/she was waiting to be

attended to.

Like earlier studies (La Grow, 2004; Waby, 2003; Barclay, 2003;

Crothall, 2004, etc.) this study implies that the barriers presented

by employers are most likely based on myths and rooted in

ignorance rather than as a result of general attitudes to disabled

people. When barriers were explored with the participants in stage

2 of this survey it was discovered that:

Only one participant knew there was government financial

and advisory support available to both blind people and their

employers. The government can provide to employers

productivity allowances, and to blind and vision-impaired

people an annual allowance for work-related expenses

including purchase of specialist equipment or software, etc.

The RNZFB provides advice and support, scripting and

configuration services.

None knew that blind and vision-impaired people were found

to be as safe as, if not safer, than sighted people in the

workplace; or

OSH does not support the commonly held view of employers

that OSH regulations preclude employment of blind people.

In fact OSH have produced a statement for employers about

employing blind and vision-impaired people, which includes

the fact that workplace accommodations are usually minor

78

and that blind and vision-impaired people are just as safe as

their sighted colleagues in the workplace.

None knew that blind and vision-impaired people were found

to be just as productive as sighted staff.

Nor did they know that systems and programmes in the main

can be modified to facilitate the use of screen-reading

software, a key aid to using computers for many blind and

vision-impaired people.

The current study presents some first-hand insight into why

employers’ behaviour is incongruent with their expressed attitudes

towards the blind and signals a need for wider employer education

to dispel the myths and break down the barriers and bring lasting

change to current perceptions.

Changing attitudes -- a way forward

Amelioration of negative attitudes and behaviour is a difficult

process. This is especially so if the underlying principles of attitude

function, development, and rationale are not addressed. Identifying

these underlying dimensions is critical to altering or improving

negative attitudes and behaviours. For attitude change to be

successful it is necessary to establish what types of attitudes exist

(and to what degree) before beginning the process of attitude

change.

All of the participants in the second stage of the research identified

that for employers’ attitudes, perceptions, and behaviour towards

blind and vision-impaired people to change, some form of education

or training would be required. They also acknowledged that their

attitudes are learned and come from a multitude of sources

including parents, friends, relatives, education settings and the

media, etc. The following comments are illustrative of the

employers’ views regarding attitude change.

79

“I was once given some very sound advice and that is that when there are those

perceptions, we don’t try and change things by rebutting that perception -- we

go and create another perception altogether. I felt that was very pertinent

advice of the situation that we were in at the particular time. So it comes down

to: advertising, public relations, information -- the type of thing that will change

perceptions.”

“It comes back to that question you raised before, KNOWLEDGE to convey to

the business community or indeed the community at large that these people

have capabilities which are beyond that which would be seen superficially.

Demonstrations, people who are actually doing it. Wouldn’t it be marvellous to

get a few interested in the sight-impaired people, particularly a segment on ‘60

Minutes’ or one of those programmes on Sunday, sight-impaired people sitting

at their computer doing their thing would be great.”

Triandis (1971) proposed a number of ways to change attitudes,

including education or information sharing from media or

individuals; direct attitude experience with the attitude “object”;

forcing behavioural change on the individual, i.e. Through

legislation; fait accompli changes; and lastly counselling or

psychotherapy. While this current study did not examine methods

of attitude change with participants, a number of those interviewed

in the second stage indicated it had to be a multi-pronged

intervention which included measures from a government level as

well as individual and community based initiatives.

Limitations

Finally, a number of important limitations to the current study need

to be considered. These limitations are grouped under four key

headings: sample size; research instrument; sample selection and

potential response bias. These limitations will assist in the design

of future research and the development of research methodologies.

Sample size

The research sample was 200 of which 102 people took part. Yuker

(1994) stated that “Studies should use adequate sample sizes, as

determined by a power analysis, to be able to confirm their

80

hypotheses” (p. 5). This study sample may be too small a sample

for accurate assessments to be made regarding the effects or

otherwise of demographic and social variables on attitudes towards

blind and vision-impaired people. However, the demographic data

on respondents presented a representative cross-section of

variables such as males and females, ethnic make-up, age ranges,

people who had hired people with disabilities and those who had

not, etc.

Research instrument

A second limitation is that the ATBP part of the research instrument

was designed by the researcher and while it was validated it did not

follow the traditional Yuker et al. (1960) Attitude Towards Disabled

Persons scale instrument design. In particular the number of

questions was reduced from 20 to 16 and some items were

incorporated from the Attitudes to Blindness Scale (Cowen,

Underberg and Verrillo, 1958). Yuker (1994) said that “there

should be attempts to improve existing measures rather than

devising new ones. Measures with low reliability should not be

used. Dissertation students should be forbidden to develop new

attitude measures (p. 5).”

Sample selection

Another limitation is the selection of the sample. The selection was

done manually by utilising population data and the UBD Business

directory. Selecting this way (while all efforts were used to ensure

it was well constructed and random) introduces the risk of human

error. Ideally the sample should have been selected through

electronic sampling means.

Potential response bias

While the overall instrument was scrutinised and all efforts made to

ensure there would be no problem with socially desirable bias

(SDB), it cannot be guaranteed to be foolproof and, as the results

81

have shown, there may well have been strong elements of this in

the responses to the ATBP attitude scale.

The measurement of non-cognitive variables as discussed by Rennie

(1982) is subject to response bias, or response set. This is the

tendency of a person to respond to questions in a particular way

independently of the content of the questions or, as conventionally

termed, items. There are many kinds of response biases: for

example, the tendency to agree rather than disagree, or the

tendency to make extreme responses.

Nancarrow and Brace (2000) suggest that in some circumstances,

respondents may be tempted to give the socially desirable response

rather than describe what they actually think, believe or do. “This

has typically been assumed to be a function of two factors, the

general strength of need for approval felt by an individual

(personality trait) and the demands of a particular situation”

(Nancarrow & Brace, 2000 p. 2).

Another important distinction has been made by Nancarrow &

Brace (2000) between SDB in response to a question being either a

function of attempting to present oneself in a favourable light to

others (interviewer and researcher) and/or a self-esteem

preservation function. The former function is known as “impression

management” and the latter as “self-deception” or “ego defence”.

The two potential problems SDB presents to researchers are:

1) “Over-reporting of socially desirable behaviour and under-

reporting of socially undesirable behaviour

2) Confounding of relationships; the presence of SDB can

attenuate, inflate or moderate relationships between variables”

(Nancarrow & Brace., 2000 pp. 2--3)

82

Kerlinger (1973, p. 497) believes that “while response set is a mild

threat to valid measurement, its importance has been overrated”.

More recently, Lehmann (1980) indicated that more research was

needed on response sets, including the kinds of people susceptible

to response set; the kinds of items and tests affected by response

sets; and whether or not their effect could or should be neutralised.

All possible efforts were taken (utilising well-known and validated

research scales validating the modified research instrument, pre-

testing the instrument on a sample of employers, learning research

interview techniques, etc.) to minimise potential response bias in

the survey results. Therefore the level of influence on the results is

uncertain, given employers may genuinely have positive attitudes to

blind and vision-impaired people as well as holding negative

stereotypical views about their employability.

Conclusions and implications of this study

The aims of this research have been examined and in summary the

following conclusions can be drawn.

To understand and measuring employer attitude differences

towards hiring persons with specific disabilities

The major implication of this research is that there is a disparity

between employers’ attitudes towards blind and vision-impaired

people and their willingness to employ them in positions in their

own companies. In particular employers had positive attitudes

towards blind and vision-impaired people but felt of all disability

types blindness (on a par with moderate to severe intellectual

disabilities) was the least employable of all disability types.

83

To explore the origins of attitudes and perceptions towards people

with disabilities (particularly the blind), for example are they

based on myths or lack of knowledge?

Certainly it appears that employers are subject to negative

stereotypes and the myths about blind and vision-impaired people.

In particular employers believed that blind and vision-impaired

people presented a real health and safety risk, were not as

productive as sighted employees, couldn’t manage workplace

systems or programmes and that the cost of adaptations to the

workplace or work processes would be prohibitive. This indicates

that employers are ignorant of the abilities and capabilities of blind

and vision-impaired people, the aids and adaptations that are

available to assist them in their roles and associated costs.

Employers also are subject to typecasting of blind people into what

has been seen as the “traditional” role for a blind person. In this

research this translated to blind people being precluded for manual

occupations such as labouring and machinery operating. Attitude

change and disability-awareness programmes are a must if barriers

and negative attitudes are to be ameliorated for blind and vision-

impaired people.

To discover if there are interrelated demographic factors that

predict attitude towards blind and vision-impaired people.

Earlier studies have found that variables such as gender, age,

business size or previous contact with people with disabilities had

an influence on attitudes, either a positive or negative influence.

However in this study it was found that the variables had no

significant influence on employer’s attitudes. These results imply

that attitudes are not necessarily a predictor of behaviour as

previously thought by researchers.

84

To develop relevant recommendations that mitigates any intrinsic

discriminatory attitudes towards blind and vision-impaired people.

The only way that blind and vision-impaired people will be able to

enjoy similar employment opportunities as sighted people is for

there to be broad-spectrum community and employer-education

programmes. Government must also take responsibility for

developing community-education programmes and the development

of complementary strategies and policies that support blind and

vision-impaired people into employment.

Recommendations

1. Start education programmes early

As attitudes and stereotyping start being developed at a

young age it is important that education programmes on

understanding blindness and vision impairment as a disability

are developed and directed towards primary and secondary

students. These programmes will, over time, break down

stereotypes and help students to better conceptualise and

develop positive attitudes towards blind and vision-impaired

people.

2. Fostering a responsible and non-discriminatory media culture

Most respondents said that their impressions of people with

disabilities came from the home and education environments

and then was reinforced through the mass media (television,

newspapers, internet and magazines). Clearly this is a very

influential channel and therefore there should be conscious

attempts to utilise the media in a constructive manner so as

to foster positive public attitudes and acceptance of people

who are blind or vision-impaired. It will also be important to

target media individuals to educate them so that the general

misconceptions and misunderstanding towards people who

are blind and vision-impaired can be explained and

ameliorated. Reporters and editors should have an accurate

85

understanding of blindness as well as an awareness of their

own pervasive power and social responsibility in equal

opportunities. Positive images of people who are blind and

vision-impaired should be portrayed by highlighting their

strengths and their contribution towards society.

3. Implement workplace training

Breaking down barriers through educating employers,

changing misconceptions and attitudes will not happen

without the utilisation of specially designed and targeted

programmes. Training and blindness awareness educational

programmes need to be more widely introduced. Currently

the Foundation of the Blind undertakes such training but is

limited in being able to offer this widely to current and

prospective employers because of limited personnel and

funding resources. However, this kind of training should be

delivered in a more expansive way through other

organisations as well, e.g. the EEO Trust, Workbridge and

others rather than relying solely on the Foundation of the

Blind.

4. Establish an employer mentoring programme

The present study results indicate that one means to achieve

better employment outcomes for blind and vision-impaired

people is to create a vehicle for employers who may be

considering hiring blind staff to speak with employers who

have already done so. Employers experienced at employing

blind and vision-impaired staff could act as mentors for those

who have never hired a blind person. If matched by industry

and occupation type, the credibility of experienced employers

should be high because the parties can share common

concerns and discuss problems such as hiring visually

impaired candidates, accommodations, and the retention

process, etc.

86

5. Develop government policy and strategy

Government is responsible for developing strategies and

policies detailing services and support of people with

disabilities. The current Disability Strategy (2001) and

Pathways to Inclusion (2001) provide a direction, amongst

other things, for increasing the participation of people with

disabilities in employment. While government has made

some implementation funds available it has relied on the

community to absorb much of the employer educational work

required into existing contracts.

As blind people are the least likely to be hired by employers

it is essential for the government to put resources directly

into a broad community education programme similar to the

“Like minds, like mine” campaign which was implemented in

1996, after an inquiry into mental health services. Judge

Ken Mason recommended that the government fund a public

education campaign to reduce discrimination associated with

mental illness. This was a five year campaign attracting

funding of $12.6 million for its implementation.

While it could not be considered for the same level of

funding it could be advocated for that a nationwide

government-funded education programme was warranted.

Government has tended to categorise people with individual

disabilities as one disability group and target its campaigns

generically. However, this has not and will not work for

blind and vision-impaired people. Blindness is ‘low incident’

in comparison with the other disabilities (such as the

physical disabilities e.g. those in wheelchairs), and as a

consequence is consumed by the larger disability group

whose needs are focused around the physical disability

needs rather than the sensory.

87

6. Introduce government funding for community initiatives

Currently many community health and social service

organisations undertake awareness activities related to

disability to some degree or another. However, many of

these organisations do so without financial backing from the

government. As these organisations work directly with those

affected by health conditions and disabilities, they are in the

best position to provide community awareness programmes.

Government should allocate sufficient funds to these

organisations under contract to enable them to undertake

this work with sufficient resources to do so.

7. Promote work experience programmes

As employers are, in the main, negatively disposed to

employing blind and vision-impaired people, work

experience programmes should be promoted to employers

and funded by government. If employers could be

encouraged to take blind and vision-impaired people on

under a work experience programme it would assist them to

understand the capabilities of blind people, including that

they are just as competent, loyal and hard working as

sighted employees. Such a scheme would mean employers

would not be required (during the work experience period)

to provide permanent employment.

Such schemes are important to break down the barriers

blind people face in gaining employment. Non-disabled

people, mostly in their teenage years, get the opportunity to

undertake work experience either in after-school or weekend

employment or regular daily jobs like paper deliveries, etc.

These work experience opportunities are where young

people learn the skills of getting up to go to work, getting

there on time and learning the social etiquette of work, etc.

88

Blind and vision-impaired people very rarely get this

opportunity.

A work experience programme can therefore assist blind and

vision-impaired people to gain valuable work skills and

opportunities for future employment. Employers similarly

get to observe blind and vision-impaired people in the work

environment and gain a potential employee.

Future research questions

Firstly this study should be repeated on a larger sample. This will

confirm whether there is any relationship between variables and

attitudes and attitudes and behaviour in comparison to this study

which found no relationship.

Most importantly, research should be conducted to examine if there

is a combination of variables that determine attitudes or negative

behaviour and/or whether there is some, as yet undiscovered,

relationship between societal and cultural norms and attitudes and

behaviour.

There may also be some value in examining employers’ attitudes to

blind and vision-impaired people by utilising more hidden disguised

research methods to see if there is any difference to the results

found in this study.

Additional research could be done to compare small businesses and

large businesses on hiring practices relating to blind and vision-

impaired people. It would be interesting to explore this avenue of

research and whether or not there are differences in the way big

businesses as opposed to small businesses would respond to hiring

someone who is blind and vision-impaired.

89

Lastly it would be useful to research the most appropriate ways of

changing employers’ attitudes towards blind and vision-impaired

people.

Summary

The findings of this study have provided a wealth of information

about employers’ attitudes and employment practice behaviour.

The employers came from different industries, rural and urban

locations, different age groups and had various educational

backgrounds and experiences with disabled people.

Although the attitudes to blind and vision-impaired people were in

the main positive, employers’ behaviour regarding employing blind

and vision-impaired people was negative. In addition, employers

believed that stereotypical jobs were best for blind and vision-

impaired people precluding them from the manufacturing and other

manual positions. Also a number of demographic variables were

tested for potential effect on attitude and employment behaviour --

none of which had any significant influence.

Past research has shown both negative and positive attitudes to

people with disabilities depending on the type of research.

Research which assessed the global views to disability was

generally positive and those which examined attitudes towards

individual disability groups were generally negative. This was in

stark contrast with this study. Some more recent research has

established that there is little connection between attitude and

behaviour (Hernandez, 2000), where positive attitudes may just be

a smoke screen for more deep-seated negative behaviours. Or is

employers’ behaviour just a result of disability ignorance.

Certainly, there is not any definitive answer and either option could

be the case in this current research.

90

REFERENCES

Antonak, R. F. (1981). Development and psychometric analysis of the scale of attitudes towards disabled persons (Technical report No. 1). Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, Education Department.

Antonak, R. F. (1988). Methods to measure attitudes towards people who are disabled. In H. E. Yuker (Ed.), Attitudes toward persons with disabilities (pp.109--125). New York: Springer.

Antonak, R. F., & Livneh, H. (1988). The measurement of attitudes towards people with disabilities: Methods, psychometrics and scales. Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Antonak, R. F., & Livneh, H. (2000). Measurement of attitudes towards persons with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 22, (5), 211--224.

Barclay, P., (2003). Increased participation of blind people in the workforce. Christchurch, New Zealand: Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind.

Bascand, P. J. (1987). Disabled people in employment – A survey of employers’ attitudes. Wellington, New Zealand: Rehabilitation League NZ (Inc).

Beatson, P. (1981). The blind at work: A report on the employment of the blind in New Zealand. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Massey University, School of Sociology and Women’s Studies.

Bohner, G., & Wänke, M. (2002). Attitudes and attitude change. United Kingdom: Psychology Press Ltd.

Brewster Smith, M. (1973). Attitude change. In N. Warren & M. Jahoda (Eds.), Attitudes (pp. 26--46). Great Britain: Cox & Wyman.

Brillhart, B. A., Jay, H., & Wyers, M. E. (1990). Attitudes toward people with disabilities. Rehabilitation Nursing, 15 (2), 80--85.

Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for Windows: A guide for social scientists. Hove: Routledge.

Chism, M., & Satcher. J. (1997). Human resource management students’ perceptions of employment and individuals with

91

disabilities. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counselling, 28 (2), 38--42.

Cowen, E. L., Underberg, R. P., & Verrillo, R. T. (1958). Attitude to blindness scale. In R. F. Antonak, H. Livneh (Eds), Measurement of attitudes toward people with disabilities: Methods, psychometrics and scale. Springfield: Thomas, 1988, (pp. 165--170).

Crothall, P. J. (2004). Looking on the bright side: employment barriers experienced by employed, totally blind New Zealanders and how these were minimised or overcome. Unpublished master’s thesis. Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Dench, S., Meager, N., & Morris, S. (1996). The recruitment and retention of people with disabilities. United Kingdom: The Institute for Employment Studies.

Department of Labour. (2001). Pathways to inclusion – Improving vocational services for people with disabilities. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Labour.

Dick, J. (1998). Seeing it through. Newsmagazine, 25 (44), 29--31.

Dixon, K. A., Kruse, D., & Van Horn, C. E. (2003). Work trends: A survey of employers about people with disabilities and lowering barriers to work. New Brunswick/Piscataway, USA: Heldrich Centre for Workforce Development New Jersey State University, Rutgers.

Doob, L. W. (1971). The behaviour of attitudes. In K. Thomas (Ed.), Attitudes and behaviour (pp. 34--51). Great Britain: Cox & Wyman.

Dryden, G. (2001). Survey of the employment of blind and partially sighted people in Europe 2000. Retrieved May 10, 2005 from RNIB web site: http://www.rnib.org.uk

Fishbein, M. (1971). Attitude and the predictor of behaviour. In K. Thomas (Ed.), Attitudes and behaviour (pp. 52--83). Great Britain: Cox & Wyman.

Gething, L. (1994). The interaction with disabled persons scale. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 9, 23--42.

Gething, L., & Wheeler, B. (1992). The interaction with disabled persons scale: A new Australian instrument to measure attitudes towards people with disabilities. Australian Journal of Psychology, 44 (2), 75--82.

92

Gibson, D., & Groeneweg, G. (1986). Employer receptivity to the developmentally handicapped: When "yes" means "no". Canada's Mental Health, 34 (2), 12--16.

Gilbride, D. D., Stensrud, R., & Connolly, M. (1992). Employers' concerns about the ADA: Implications and opportunities for rehabilitation counsellors. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counselling, 23, 45--46.

Gilbride, D. D., Stensrud, R., Ehlers, C., Evans, E. & Peterson, C. (2000). Employers' attitudes toward hiring persons with disabilities and vocational rehabilitation services Journal of Rehabilitation, 66 (4), 17--23.

Goss, D., Goss, F., & Adam-Smith, D. (2000). Disability and employment: a comparative critique of UK legislation. International Journal of Resource Management, 11, 807--821.

Graffam, J., Shinkfield, A., Smith, K., & Polzin, U. (2002). Factors that influence employer decisions in hiring and retaining an employee with a disability. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22, (3), 175--181.

Greenwood, R., & Johnson, V.A. (1987). Employer perspectives on workers with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 53, 37--45.

Hernandez, B. (2000). Employer attitudes toward workers with disabilities and their ADA employment rights: A literature review (Americans with Disabilities Act). Journal of Rehabilitation Oct-Dec 2000, pp. 1--26. Retrieved August 11, 2003 from LookSmart Find Articles http://search.looksmart.com/p/articles/mi_m0825/is_4_66/ai_68865430 .

Hernandez, B., Keys, C. B. & Balcazar F. E. (2004). Disability rights: attitudes of private and public sector representatives. Journal of Rehabilitation, Jan--March. Retrieved July 7th, 2005 from LookSmart Find Articles http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0825/is_1_70/ai_n6114612

Human Rights Commission (1993 and amendments 2001). The Human Rights Act. Retrieved December 10, 2005, from http://www.hrc.co.nz/index.php?p=308

Hunt, B., & Hunt, C. S. (2000). Attitudes toward people with disabilities: A comparison of undergraduate rehabilitation and business majors. Rehabilitation Education, 14 (3), 269—284.

93

Hunt, C. S. & Hunt, B. (2004). Changing attitudes toward people with disabilities: experimenting with an educational intervention [Electronic version]. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16 (2), 266—282.

Jensen, J., Sathiyandra, M., Rochfrod, M., Jones, D., Krishnan, V., & McLeod, K. (2004, November ). Work Participation Amongst People With Disabilities: Does the type of Disability Influence the Outcome? Retrieved January 21, 2005, from www. m s d .go v t.nz/ d ocu m ents/e v ents/ strategic-social-policy/conference-04/69. d oc

Jobabilty.com (2000). Employers’ attitudes towards employing disabled people. Retrieved July 1, 2003, from Jobability.com: http://jobability.com/

Junco, R. (2002). Assessing an Online Training Program’s Ability to Change Attitudes Towards Students With Disabilities. Unpublished master’s dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, Philadelphia.

Katz, I., Hass, R. G., & Bailey, J. (1998). Attitudinal ambivalence and behaviour toward people with disabilities. In H. E. Yuker (Ed.), Attitudes toward persons with disabilities (pp. 47--57). New York: Springer.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of Behavioural Research (2nd ed.). London: Holt Rinehart & Winston.

Kregel, J., & Unger, D. (1993). Employer perceptions of the work potential of individuals with disabilities: An illustration from supported employment. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 3, 17--25.

La Grow, S. (2003). Participation of blind people in the workforce. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Massey University,.

La Grow, S. (2004) Factors affecting the employment status of working age adults with a visual disability in New Zealand. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Massey University.

Lee, T., & Rodda, M. (1994). Modification of attitudes toward people with disabilities. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation 7, 229—238.

Lehmann, I. J. (1980). Measuring affect. Australian Educational Researcher, 7 (3), 29--52.

Levy, J. M., Jessop, D.J., Rimmerman, A., Francis F. & Levy, P.H. (1993). Determinates of attitudes of New York State employers

94

towards the employment of persons with sever handicaps. Electronic Journal of Rehabilitation, Jan--March. Retrieved October 21, 2005, from LookSmart Find Articles http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0825/is_n1_v59/ai_13839748

Levy, J.M., Jessop, D.J., Rimmerman, A., & Levy, P.H. (1992). Attitudes of Fortune 500 corporate executives toward the employability of persons with severe disabilities: A national study. Mental Retardation, 30, 67--75.

Livneh, H. (1982). On the origins of negative attitudes towards people with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation Literature, 43, 338--347.

Livneh, H. (1998) A Dimensional perspective on the origin of negative attitudes toward persons with disabilities. In H. E. Yuker (Ed.), Attitudes Toward Persons with Disabilities (pp. 47--57). New York: Springer.

Lunt, N. (2003). Disabled people within the labour market: “Evidence” from New Zealand. VASS, April conference, Auckland, New Zealand.

Lyth, M. (1973). Employers’ attitudes to the employment of the disabled. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 47, 67--70.

Makas, E. (1985). Modified issues in disability scale [MIDS]. Washington, DC, USA: George Washington University.

Maurer, M. (1995). The heritage of conflict. Vital speeches of the day, 61 (21), 664--670.

McCarthy, H. (1988). Attitudes that affect employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. In H. E. Yuker (Ed.), Attitudes towards persons with disabilities. (chap. 18. pp. 246--261).

Miller, M. J. (1996). Attitudes of pre-service students towards persons with disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Main University, Ann Arbor, UMI.

Millman, H. (2001). Beyond sight. InfoWorld. 223 (32), 32--34.

Ministry of Social Development – Office of Disability Issues. (2002). Briefing to the incoming Minister of Disability Issues. Retrieved July 15, 2003, from http://www.odi.govt.nz/publications/minister-briefing/

95

Ministry of Health. (2001). New Zealand disability strategy: Making a world of difference. Wellington: MoH.

Nancarrow, C., & Brace, I. (2000). Saying the “right thing”: Coping with social desirability bias in marketing research. Bristol Teaching & Research Review, 3, Summer. Retrieved November 2, 2005, from http://www.uwe.ac.uk/bbs/trr/Issue3/Is3-2_2.htm

New Zealand Human Rights Commission. (1993). New Zealand Human Rights Act. Wellington, HRC.

Olson, J. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 117--154.

Rennie, L. J., (1982). Detecting a response set to Likert-style attitude items with the rating model. Education Research and Perspective, 9 (1), 114--118.

Scott, D. (2003). Disability and labour market attachment: Assessing and responding to the needs of the Saskatchewan social assistance clients. Regina, Canada: Saskatchewan Community Resource and Employment.

Simpson, H., Gold, D., & Zuvela, B. (2005). An unequal playing field: Report on the needs of people who are blind or visually impaired living in Canada. Canada: The Canadian Institute of the Blind.

Statistics New Zealand. (2001). Census of population and dwellings. Retrieved July 21, 2003, from http://www.stats.govt.nz/census/

Statistics New Zealand. (2002). Disability Survey Snapshot 6. Sensory Disabilities. Retrieved July 21, 2003, from http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/pasfull/pasfull.nsf/web/Media+Release+2001+New+Zealand+Disability+Survey+Snapshot+6+Sensory+Disabilities?open

Statistics New Zealand. (2003). Household Labour Force Survey - September. Retrieved June 21, 2004, from http://www.stats.govt.nz/default.htm

Statistics New Zealand. (2005). Household Labour Force Survey - September. Retrieved January 6, 2006, from http://www.stats.govt.nz/default.htm

Thomas, A. (2001). The multidimensional character of biased perceptions of individuals with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation. April--June. Retrieved December 23, 2005, from

96

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0825/is_2_67/ai_76398482/print

Thomas, K. (Ed.) (1971). Attitudes and behaviour. Great Britain: Cox & Wyman.

Trewin, D., & Pink, B. (2005). ANZSCO – Australian and New Zealand standard classification of occupations. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitude and attitude change. Toronto: John Wiley and Sons.

Trochim, W. M. K. (2002). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Retrieved on February 2, 2005, from http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/index.htm

Tyler, K. (2000). Blindness, human resource hiring. Human Resource Magazine, 45 (12), 129—134 .

Unger, D. D. (2002). Employer's attitudes toward people with disabilities in the workforce: Myths or realities? Focus on Autism and other Developmental Disabilities, 17, 2—10.

United States of America Congress (1990). Americans with Disabilities Act. Retrieved December 1, 2005, from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/pubs/ada.txt

United States Department of Labor (2004). Office of Disability Employment Policy. Retrieved December 1, 2005, from http://www.dol.gov/odep/

Waby, P., Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind. (2003). Perceived implications of employing blind and sight-impaired New Zealanders. Dunedin, New Zealand: Author.

Wicker, A.W. (1971). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioural response to attitude objects. In K. Thomas (Ed.), Attitudes and behaviour (pp. 135--178). Great Britain: Cox & Wyman.

Wilgosh, L., & Skaret, D. (1987). Employer attitudes toward hiring individuals with disabilities: A review of the recent literature. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 1, 89--98.

Wolffe, K. E., Candela, A. R. (2002). A Qualitative analysis of employers’ experiences with visually impaired workers. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 96 (9), September,

97

retrieved May 14, 2005, from http://www.afb.org/jvib/jvibabstract.asp?articleid=JVIB960903

Yuker, H. E. (Ed.) (1988). Attitudes toward persons with disabilities. New York: Springer.

Yuker, H. E. (1994). Variables that influence attitudes toward people with disabilities. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 9, 3--22.

Yuker, H. E., & Hurley, M. K. (1987). Contact with and attitudes toward persons with disabilities: The measurement of inter-group contact. Rehabilitation Psychology, 32, 145—155.

Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R. & Campbell, W. J. (1988). Attitudes toward disabled persons scale form O [ATDP] (1960). In R. F. Antonak, H. Livneh (Eds), Measurement of attitudes toward people with disabilities: Methods, psychometrics and scale. Springfield: Thomas, (chap. 9. pp. 134--9).

98

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE

Employer Survey (Telephone)

Hello, my name is I would like to talk to the person who is responsible for employing staff in the organisation please. Interviewer Name: Hello, my name is I am calling from Massey University (in

Auckland) to ask you about your company’s experiences with hiring people with

disabilities. This interview should take about 10 minutes. Do you have time to

talk now or would you rather schedule a time for me to call back?

Thank you. Before we begin the survey I would firstly like to get some background details from you about you and your company for our records. Secondly I would like to assure you that any information gathered in this survey will not be attributable to any person or company. You can be certain that anything you say will be treated confidentially. The results of the survey will be collated, statistically analyzed and reported under board employer groupings. (1) Company Name: [for our records only] (2) Company Address:

[for our records only] (3) City/town (4) What best describes your type of company/agency _____________

[Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, Mining, Manufacturing, Electricity, Gas and Water Supply, Construction, Wholesale Trade, Retail Trade, Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants, Transport and Storage, Communication Services, Finance and Insurance, Property and Business Services, Government Administration and Defence, Education, Health and Community Services, Cultural and Recreational Services, Personal and Other Services]

(5) Number of Employees: (6) Person Interviewed: (7) Job Title: (8) Gender: ________________ [you shouldn’t need to ask this once they have told you their name and you have heard their voice] The interview is divided into three sections which will take 1-3 minutes each to complete.

Section One:

I will start by asking you some questions about people you have hired in the past.

(9) Have you ever hired a person with a disability before? Yes No If no, go to section 2. If yes, ask the following questions 10-15 (10) Did you know the person had a disability before you hired them? Yes No (11) If you have hired people with disabilities, how many people have you hired? ____

(12) What disability(s) does your employee(s) have that you know of? (13) Have you provided work place modifications or support for employees with disabilities? Yes No If no, go on to question 15 otherwise if yes, go straight on to question 14 (14) If yes, what work place modifications or support have you provided (may have to give examples – see below)?

(examples: Providing interpreters, readers, or other personal assistance, Modifying job duties, Restructuring work sites, Providing flexible work schedules or work sites, Obtaining accessible technology or other workplace adaptive equipment.)

(15) Are you pleased you hired a person(s) with a disability? Yes No

What has been your experience with this person as an employee that lead you to say you were pleased / not pleased to employ them (probe for detailed answer):

Section Two: I would now like you to think of the job in your company that most often is open and

needs external applicants. What is the job title of that position?

(16) .

I am now going to read a list of different types of disabilities that people experience.

Please think of the job you just mentioned and respond by telling me how hard you

think it would be to hire a person for this job if the person has the following disability.

Please respond using a scale of 1 - impossible, 2 = difficult, 3 = moderately difficult, 4

= easy, and 5 = no problem at all. If you don’t know or are unsure, please respond

“unsure”

Impossible No Problem (17) Mild intellectual handicap (IQ > 70) 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(18) Moderate/severe intellectual handicap (IQ 50 - 70)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(19) Blindness (visually impaired) 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(20) Deaf/Hard of Hearing 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(21) Mobility (wheelchair) 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(22) Back limitation 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(23) Arthritis 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(24) Mental illness 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(25) Emotional illness 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(26) Brain Injury (memory and attention problems)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(27) Heart disease 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(28) Respiratory disease 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(29) Cancer 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(30) HIV positive 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

Now I would like you to think of the second most often filled job in your company.

What is the job title of that position?

(31) .

I am going to read you the list again. Please respond using the same scale as before

[Ask the person if they want you to repeat the scale. Repeat scale if necessary]

Impossible No Problem Unsure (32) Mild intellectual handicap (IQ . 70) 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(33) Moderate/severe intellectual handicap (IQ 50 - 70)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(34) Blindness (visually impaired) 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(35) Deaf/Hard of Hearing 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(36) Mobility (wheelchair) 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(37) Back limitation 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(38) Arthritis 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(39) Mental illness 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(40) Emotional illness 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(41) Brain Injury (memory and attention problems)

1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(42) Heart disease 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(43) Respiratory disease 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(44) Cancer 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

(45) HIV positive 1 2 3 4 5 Unsure

Section Three: Lastly I have some concluding questions related to one of the disability groups’ often identified as hard to employ in jobs commonly filled by external applicants in companies. These questions are general in nature and not necessarily related to employing a person with a disability in any particular job. I am now going to read you some statements which describe common perceptions about blind people at work. I would like you to respond to these using a scale of 1 = Strongly agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Not sure but tend to agree, 4 = Not sure but tend to disagree, 5 = Disagree, 6 = Strongly disagree. (46) A blind person would not be as productive as a sighted person 1 2 3 4 5 6

(47) The cost of adaptations to the workplace would be too much for our company

1 2 3 4 5 6

(48) It would be too dangerous or unsafe for a blind person to do the job

1 2 3 4 5 6

(49) Blind people are just as reliable and productive in the workplace as sighted workers

1 2 3 4 5 6

(50) A blind person could not use a computer

1 2 3 4 5 6

(51) We couldn’t rely on a blind person being able to get to work on time

1 2 3 4 5 6

(52) A blind person is more likely to have absences from work

1 2 3 4 5 6

(53) Blind workers are as successful and ambitious as other workers

1 2 3 4 5 6

(54) A blind person wouldn’t be able to manage to use our computer systems and specialist

programmes 1 2 3 4 5 6

(55) A blind person could not work independently or get around the workplace without a lot of

help from others 1 2 3 4 5 6

(56) Blind people generally can’t manage to work a 40 hour week

1 2 3 4 5 6

(57) Blind workers are just as safe and reliable in the work place as non-disabled workers

1 2 3 4 5 6

(58) Staff in the company would not know how to treat or react to a blind person on the job

1 2 3 4 5 6

(59) We couldn’t have a guide dog on the premises for health and safety reasons

1 2 3 4 5 6

(60) Blind people are more easily upset than people who are sighted

1 2 3 4 5 6

(61) Most blind people don’t really want to work and are unlikely to stay in any job for very

long 1 2 3 4 5 6

And lastly for our statistical purposes can you please tell me: (62) Which of the following age ranges best describes your age: 20-29____, 30-39____, 40-49____, 50-59 ____, 60-69 ____, 70+___ (63) What is the highest educational level you have achieved?

NZ School Certificate ____, NZ Sixth Form Certificate ____, NZ Higher School Certificate or Higher Leaving Certificate _____, NZ University Bursary or Entrance or Scholarship _____,University qualification _____.

(64) Does any of your family, relatives or friends have a disability? Yes __ No ___ If yes go to question 66, if no, go straight on to question 65 (65) Have you had any contact with people with disabilities? Yes __ No ___ (66) Ethnicity:

NZ European or Pakeha___, NZ Maori____, Samoan____, Tongan____ Cook Island Maori____, Niuean____, Indian____, Chinese____, other European_____, Other please specify_____________

We will be conducting about half a dozen personal follow-up ½ hour interviews or focus groups in a few weeks time. Would you be willing to be a participant? (67) Phone Number: [if willing to be called back for detailed personal interview or join focus group] Thank you for your time. If you have any questions about this survey or the results, please feel free to contact either Dr. Janet Sayers or Dr. Margot Edwards at Massey University, in Auckland by calling 09-414-0800.

APPENDIX B: CONSENT FORMS AND ETHICS STATEMENT

Date

5 Springleigh AvenueMount AlbertAuckland, 1003

Dear (insert participant’s name):

This letter is to confirm you’re participating in the second stage of my research which I am conducting as part of my Master’s degree in the Department of Management and International Business at Massey University under the supervision of Dr. Janet Sayers and Dr. Margot Edwards. Firstly I would like to thank you for your participation already in the first stage telephone interview. Secondly I would like to provide you with more information about this project and what your involvement in the second stage will entail.

Over the years, people with disabilities have experienced, to varying degrees, difficulty in finding employment, and research in the past decade suggests participation in the workforce of disabled people is affected by employers’ lack of awareness of disabled people and their abilities, and the personal attitudes of employers. Since the introduction of the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993 which prohibits employment discrimination against those who are disabled, attitudes have gradually begun to change. The Human Rights Act was later supplemented with the Disability Strategy (Ministry of Health, 2001) and the Pathways to Inclusion Strategy (Department of Labour, 2001). Hence, this has resulted in further encouragement of employers to consider employing people with disabilities. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to examine in more detail disabled people’s participation in the workforce by examining employers’ views.

My particular interest is in the blind, which the research of the literature has shown to be in the less favoured groups of employees employers are willing to employ. None of the research has addressed why this is the case. The aim of my research is to ascertain if blind and vision-impaired people are less favoured (in comparison with other disability groups) as potential employees in New Zealand firms and to obtain an understanding of the common knowledge, attitudes or perceptions that contribute to the decisions made about hiring people with disabilities. In particular I hope to gain an understanding of what these attitudes and perceptions are and how or why they influence employers.

Participation in this study is voluntary. It will involve an interview of approximately 40 minutes to take place in a mutually agreed-upon time and location. You may decline to answer any of the interview questions if you so wish. Further, you may decide to withdraw from this study at any time by advising the researcher. With your permission, the interview will be tape-recorded to facilitate collection of information, and later transcribed for analysis. Shortly after the interview has been completed, I will send you a copy of the transcript to give you an opportunity to confirm the accuracy of our conversation and to add or clarify any points that you wish. All information you provide is considered completely confidential. Your name will not appear in any thesis or report resulting from this study, however quotations may be used. Data collected during this study will be retained for the duration of the research project in a locked filing cabinet in my home. Only my supervisors and myself will have access. There are no known or anticipated risks to you as a participant in this study.

If you have any questions regarding this study, or would like additional information to assist you in preparing for your participation in the second stage of the research, please contact me by phone on 09-815-2427 or 0274-755634 or by email at chrisi@pl.net You can also contact my supervisors, Dr. Janet Sayers-(09) 414-0800 ext. 9215 or email J.G.Sayers@massey.ac.nz and Dr. Margot Edwards at (09) 414-0800 ext. 9218 or email M.F.Edwards@massey.ac.nz.

The project was judged to be low risk and approved by the researcher and supervisor under delegated authority from Massey University Human Ethics committee on 15th March 2004. If you have any comments or concerns regarding the ethics of this study, please contact Professor Sylvia Rumball, Assistant to the Vice-Chancellor (Ethics & Equity), telephone 06 350 5249, email humanethicsspn@massey.ac.nz

I hope that the results of my study will be of benefit to those organisations directly involved in the study, and people with disabilities themselves who are not directly involved in the study, as well as to the broader research community.

I very much look forward to speaking with you and thank you in advance for your assistance in this project.

Yours Sincerely,

Chris InglisMaster’s Student

CONSENT FORM

I have read the information presented in the information letter about a study being conducted by Chris Inglis of the Department of Management and International Business at Massey University. I have had the opportunity to ask any questions related to this study, to receive satisfactory answers to my questions, and any additional details I wanted.

I am aware that I have the option of allowing my interview to be tape-recorded to ensure an accurate recording of my responses.

I am also aware that excerpts from the interview may be included in the thesis and/or publications to come from this research, with the understanding that the quotations will be anonymous.

I was informed that I may withdraw my consent at any time without penalty by advising the researcher.

This project has been reviewed by, and received ethics clearance through, the Human Ethics Committee at Massey University. I was informed that if I have any comments or concerns resulting from my participation in this study, I may contact Vice-Chancellor (Ethics & Equity), telephone 06 350 5249, email humanethicsspn@massey.ac.nz .

With this knowledge, I agree to participate in the second stage of this study.

YES NO

I agree to have my interview tape-recorded.

YES NO

I agree to the use of anonymous quotations in any thesis or publication that comes of this research.

YES NO

Participant Name: ____________________________ (Please print)

Participant Signature: ____________________________

Date: ____________________________

Employer Experiences of Employing People with Disabilities

INFORMATION SHEET

1. ResearcherChris Inglis5 Springleigh Avenue Mount Albert, Auckland

Tel: 0274-755634 (mobile); 09 815 2427 (home); or 09 355 6592 (work)

Email: chrisi@pl.net

As part of my degree of Master of Management I am researching in the area of employment of people

with disabilities.

The research being undertaken examines the experiences of employers employing people with disabilities. I am seeking to understand the level of employment of people with disabilities in the workforce, what kinds of jobs are deemed suitable for people of different disabilities in a range of workplaces and lastly obtaining an understanding of the common knowledge, attitudes or perceptions that contribute to the decisions made about hiring people with disabilities. In particular I am looking at disability groups often identified as hard to employ (in this case the blind and vision-impaired) in jobs commonly filled by external applicants in companies.

2. SupervisorsDr Janet Sayers, Senior Lecturer

Department of Management, Massey University, Albany Tel: 09-414 0800 ext. 9215Email: J.G.Sayers@massey.ac.nz

And

Dr Margot Edwards, Senior LecturerDepartment of Management, Massey University, Albany Tel: 09-414 0800 ext. 9218Email: M.F.Edwards@massey.ac.nz

3. Participant recruitmentThe research is focusing on a sample of small, medium and large-sized New Zealand-based organisations. Your organisation was selected following a random web-based search of the UBD business directory.

The first stage telephone survey of the research has been conducted. You were a participant in this survey.

4. Participant involvementIn carrying out this research, a two-stage interview process has been employed. Firstly a randomly

selected telephone survey was conducted with 200 New Zealand companies and secondly six

personal interviews of people who volunteered for a follow-up interview in the telephone survey. Each

interview should take no longer than 40 minutes.

All interviewees will be asked to review their interview transcripts for accuracy.

5. Project proceduresThe research will be conducted in an ethical manner using the information provided only for the purposes of this research project. The identity of individuals will not be disclosed throughout the research project or in any reports without their written consent. If you request it, a pseudonym can be used to protect your identity and that of your organisation.

During the research period, all surveys and personal interview documents gathered during the research will be held in a secure place in the researcher's home at the above address, and will be destroyed at the completion of the research project and after publication. You will also be provided with a summary of the research report.

6. Participant's rightsYour participation in this research is voluntary and you can decline to participate, or refuse to answer any particular question(s ), or withdraw up until the final draft of the thesis is completed (30 November 2005), or ask any questions about the study at any time during participation. You also have the right to ask for the audio tape to be turned off at any time during the interview.

7. Committee approval statementThis research was peer reviewed and the project was judged to be low risk and approved by the researcher and supervisor under delegated authority from Massey University Human Ethics committee on 15th March 2004. Electronic copy of ethics approval document is appended.

If you have any concerns about the conduct of this research that you wish to raise with someone other than the researcher, please contact my supervisors, Dr. Janet Sayers and Dr. Margot Edwards or Lu Yan, Post Graduate Administrator, phone 0800 MASSEY extension 916.

8. Project contactsIf you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the researcher using any of the contact details listed above, or alternatively, you may have questions you wish to put to the research supervisor.

Chris InglisMaster’s Student

15 March 2004

Christine Inglis5 Springleigh AvenueMount AlbertAUCKLAND

Dear Christine

Re: Employer experiences of employing people with disabilities

Thank you for the MUHEC Checklist and Section A of the MUHEC Application Form that was received on 12 March 2004.

As specified in the Code of Ethical Conduct for Research, Teaching and Evaluations involving Human Participants, persons who submit the MUHEC Checklist with every question answered with a ‘no’, together with Section A of the MUHEC Application Form (including a signed Declaration), may proceed with their research without approval from a Campus Human Ethics Committee. You are reminded that this delegated authority for approval is based on trust that the Checklist has been accurately filled out and is valid for three years. Please notify me if situations subsequently occur which cause you to reconsider your initial ethical analysis.

Please ensure that the following statement is used on all public documents, and in particular on Information Sheets:

“This project has been reviewed, judged to be low risk, and approved (note to applicant: include the process below that is most appropriate to practice within your Department, School or Institute)

by the researcherby the researcher and supervisorby peer review (if you followed that process)by other appropriate process (outline the process appropriately)

under delegated authority from the Massey University Human Ethics

Committee. If you have any concerns about the conduct of this research,

please contact Professor Sylvia Rumball, Assistant to the Vice-Chancellor

(Equity & Ethics), telephone 06 350 5249, email humanethics@massey.ac.nz”.

Please note that if a sponsoring organisation, funding authority, or a journal in which you wish to publish requires evidence of Committee approval (with an approval number), you will have to provide a full application to a Campus Human Ethics Committee.

Yours sincerely

Professor Sylvia V Rumball, ChairAssistant to the Vice-Chancellor (Ethics & Equity)

Cc Janet SayersManagement and International Business, ALBANY

APPENDIX C: RESEARCH SAMPLING

New Zealand Population per Region and Percentage against Total Population Used to ascertain Subsequent Research Sample Proportion of total Research

SampleNorthland Region

New Zealand Percentage Large Small Total

Males 68,910 1,823,007Females 71,220 1,914,273Total 140,130 3,737,277 3.70% 1 6 7

Auckland Region

New Zealand

Males 563,109 1,823,007Females 595,782 1,914,273Total 1,158,891 3,737,277 31% 6 56 62

Waikato Region

New Zealand

Males 175,962 1,823,007Females 181,764 1,914,273Total 357,726 3,737,277 9.60% 2 17 19

Bay of Plenty Region

New Zealand

Males 116,211 1,823,007Females 123,201 1,914,273Total 239,412 3,737,277 6.40% 1 12 13

Gisborne Region

New Zealand

Males 21,510 1,823,007Females 22,461 1,914,273Total 43,971 3,737,277 1.20% 0 2 2

Hawke's Bay Region

New Zealand

Males 69,675 1,823,007Females 73,272 1,914,273Total 142,947 3,737,277 3.80% 1 7 8

Taranaki Region

New Zealand

Males 50,418 1,823,007Females 52,437 1,914,273Total 102,858 3,737,277 2.80% 1 5 6

Manawatu-Wanganui

Region

New Zealand

Males 107,301 1,823,007Females 112,788 1,914,273Total 220,089 3,737,277 5.90% 1 11 12

Continued over page:

Wellington Region

New Zealand

Males 205,869 1,823,007Females 217,899 1,914,273Total 423,765 3,737,277 11.30% 2 21 23

West Coast Region

New Zealand

Males 15,261 1,823,007Females 15,045 1,914,273Total 30,300 3,737,277 0.08% 0 1 1

Canterbury Region

New Zealand

Males 234,519 1,823,007Females 246,915 1,914,273Total 481,431 3,737,277 12.80% 3 23 26

Otago RegionNew

ZealandMales 88,266 1,823,007Females 93,273 1,914,273Total 181,539 3,737,277 4.80% 1 9 10

Southland Region

New Zealand

Males 45,171 1,823,007Females 45,831 1,914,273Total 91,002 3,737,277 2.40% 0 5 5

Tasman RegionNew

ZealandMales 20,670 1,823,007Females 20,685 1,914,273Total 41,352 3,737,277 1.11% 0 2 2

Nelson RegionNew

ZealandMales 20,136 1,823,007Females 21,432 1,914,273Total 41,568 3,737,277 1.11% 0 2 2

Marlborough Region

New Zealand

Males 19,605 1,823,007Females 19,953 1,914,273Total 39,561 3,737,277 1% 0 2 2

Area Outside Region

New Zealand

Males 408 1,823,007Females 315 1,914,273Total 726 3,737,277 0% 0 0 0

0.99102 19 181 200

Number of businesses per size category per region

Regions   50+ 1 to 50   Total

Northland 108 5,649 5,757Greater Auckland 1,699 38,550 40,249Waikato/BOP 554 22,416 22,970Hawke’s Bay/East Coast 152 6,945 7,097Taranaki 94 3,756 3,850Manawatu/Wairarapa/Wanganui 188 8,893 9,081Greater Wellington 535 13,814 14,349Nelson/Marlb/W Coast 143 6,631 6,774Canterbury 596 18,670 19,266Otago/Southland/ Fiordland 278 11,270 11,548      0    Total businesses 4,347 136,594 140,941

Proportional business sample strata combined from New Zealand statistics regions

into UBD directory amalgamated regions

Northland/ Greater Auckland

Totals per combined regions

Nthld AuckSmall-medium [0-49] 6 56

Large [50 plus] 1 6

Total 7 62 69

Waik/BOP/Hawkes B/East Cost

Waik BOP Hawkes B/ECSmall-medium [0-49] 17 12 9

Large [50 plus] 2 1 1

Total 19 13 10 42

Taranaki/Manawatu/Wairarapa/Wang

Taranaki Man/Wairap/WangSmall-medium [0-49] 5 11

Large [50 plus] 1 1

Total 6 12 18

Greater Wellington

Wellington RegionSmall-medium [0-49] 21

Large [50 plus] 2

Total 23 23

Continued on next page:

Nelson/Matlb/West C/Canterbury

Nelson/Marlb/West C CanterburySmall-medium [0-49] 7 23

Large [50 plus] 0 3

Total 7 26 33

Otago Southland

Otago SthlandSmall-medium [0-49] 14

Large [50 plus] 1

Total 15 15

Cross check total 200

APPENDIX D: INFERENTIAL AND GRAPHICAL RESULTS

40 60 80

Total score on attitudes to blindness scale

0

5

10

15

20

Cance

r

HIV p

ositiv

e

Heart

dise

ase

Respi

rato

ry d

iseas

e

Arthrit

is

Back

Emot

iona

l illn

ess

Deaf

Mild

inte

llect

ual h

andi

cap

Men

tal il

lnes

s

Mob

ility

Brain

Inju

ry

Blind

Mod

/sev

ere

inte

llect

ual h

andi

cap

Disability categories

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

Me

an s

core

3.74 3.79

3.393.63

1.88

2.68

2.24

3.07

2.78

2.18

2.67

1.431.39

2.24

Couldn't

rely

on a

get

ting to

work

on ti

me

Don't re

ally

wan

t to w

ork; u

nlikel

y to

sta

y lo

ng

More

like

ly to

hav

e ab

sence

s

Can't

man

age

to w

ork a

40

hour wee

k

More

eas

ily u

pset

As su

cces

sful a

nd am

bitious

Could n

ot use

a c

ompute

r

Just

as

relia

ble a

nd pro

ductiv

e

Staff

would n

ot know h

ow to tr

eat o

r rea

ct

Just

as

safe

and re

liable

Couldn't

have

a guid

e dog fo

r H&S re

asons

Couldn't

work o

r get

aro

und with

out hel

p

Would

n't m

anag

e sy

stem

s an

d pro

gram

mes

Not as

product

ive

Cost o

f adap

tatio

ns to

o much

Too dan

gerous

or unsa

fe

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Mea

n s

core

5.234.93

4.22 4.274.22

5.06

3.753.42

4.89 5.075.3

4.664.38

2.853.24 3.28

Scale items

Couldn't

rely

on a

get

ting to

work

on ti

me

Don't re

ally

wan

t to w

ork; u

nlikel

y to

sta

y lo

ng

More

like

ly to

hav

e ab

sence

s

Can't

man

age

to w

ork a

40

hour wee

k

More

eas

ily u

pset

As su

cces

sful a

nd am

bitious

Could n

ot use

a c

ompute

r

Just

as

relia

ble a

nd pro

ductiv

e

Staff

would n

ot know h

ow to tr

eat o

r rea

ct

Just

as

safe

and re

liable

Couldn't

have

a guid

e dog fo

r H&S re

asons

Couldn't

work o

r get

aro

und with

out hel

p

Would

n't m

anag

e sy

stem

s an

d pro

gram

mes

Not as

product

ive

Cost o

f adap

tatio

ns to

o much

Too dan

gerous

or unsa

fe

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Me

an

5.234.93

4.22 4.274.22

5.06

3.753.42

4.89 5.075.3

4.664.38

2.853.24 3.28

Mean score on each itemNote: Positive items reversed

MaleFemale

Gender

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

Mea

n o

f m

ean

sco

re o

n a

ttit

ud

es t

o b

lind

nes

s sc

ale

4.24.4

Attitudes to blindness by gender

Not recordedUniversity qualification

NZ University Bursary or Entrance or Scholarship

NZ Sixth Form Certificate

NZ Higher School

Certificate or Higher Leaving

Certificate

NZ School Certificate

Education

80

60

40

20

0

Mea

n o

f to

tal s

core

on

att

itu

des

to

blin

dn

ess

scal

e

69.672.875.5

63.2 66.570.6

Attitudes to blindness by educational level

60+50-5940-49<=39

Age groups

80

60

40

20

0

Mea

n o

f to

tal s

core

on

att

itu

des

to

blin

dn

ess

scal

e

61.9

69.971.268.4

Attitudes to blindness by age group

MaleFemale

Gender

80

60

40

20

0

Mea

n o

f to

tal s

core

on

att

itu

des

to

blin

dn

ess

scal

e

66.870.9

Attitudes to blindness by gender

NoYes

Previously hired

60

40

20

0

Mea

n o

f to

tal s

core

on

att

itu

des

to

blin

dn

ess

scal

e

67.570.0

Attitudes to blindness by previous hiring of disabled employees

NoYes

Family member with a disability

80

60

40

20

0

Mea

n o

r to

tal s

core

on

att

itu

des

to

blin

dn

ess

scal

e

66.470.5

Attitudes to blindness by family member with disability

NoYes

Family member with disability

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

Mea

n o

f m

ean

sco

re o

n a

ttit

ud

es t

o b

lind

nes

s sc

ale

4.24.4

Attitudes to blindness by family member with disability

NoYes

Previously hired

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

Mea

n o

f m

ean

sco

re o

n a

ttit

ud

es t

o b

lind

nes

s sc

ale

4.24.4

Attitudes to blindness by previous hiring of disabled employees

60+50-5940-49<=39

Age

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

Mea

n o

f m

ean

sco

re o

n a

ttit

ud

es t

o b

lind

nes

s sc

ale

3.9

4.44.44.3

Attitudes to blindness by age group

Not recordedUniversity qualification

NZ University Bursary or Entrance or Scholarship

NZ Sixth Form Certificate

NZ Higher School

Certificate or Higher

Leaving Certificate

NZ School Certificate

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

Mea

n o

f m

ean

sco

re o

n a

ttit

ud

es

to b

lind

nes

s sc

ale

4.44.54.7

4.04.2

4.4

Attitudes to blindness by education level

Respondents

100

80

60

40

20

To

tal s

core

on

att

itu

des

to

blin

dn

ess

sca

leP

ositive attitudes N

egative a

ttitudes

Man

ager

s

Cleric

al &

adm

inis

trativ

e work

ers

Profe

ssio

nals

Comm

unity &

per

sonal

ser

vice

work

ers

Technic

ians

& trad

e work

ers

Sales

work

ers

Laboure

rs

Mac

hiner

y oper

ators

& d

river

s

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

Mea

n e

mp

loya

bili

ty o

f b

lind

peo

ple

sc

ore

1.11.1

1.3

1.7

1.51.4

1.6

2.0

Job category

T-Test: previously hired disabled staff

Group Statistics

Previously hired N Mean Std. DeviationStd. Error

MeanTotal score on Attitudes to Blind Person scale

Yes 51 70.00 11.326 1.586

No 51 67.53 13.818 1.935

Independent Samples Test

Levene Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)Mean

DifferenceStd. Error Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower UpperTotal score on Attitudes to Blind Person scale

Equal variances assumed .186 .667 .988 100 .326 2.471 2.502 -2.493 7.434

Equal variances not assumed .988 96.290 .326 2.471 2.502 -2.495 7.436

T-Test: family member with disability

Group Statistics

Family member with disability N Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Total score on Attitudes to Blind Person scale

Yes 59 70.47 11.276 1.468

No 43 66.42 14.085 2.148

Independent Samples Test

Levene Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)Mean

DifferenceStd. Error Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower UpperTotal score on Attitudes to Blind Person scale

Equal variances assumed .848 .359 1.614 100 .110 4.056 2.513 -.930 9.042

Equal variances not assumed 1.559 78.066 .123 4.056 2.602 -1.124 9.235

T-Test: Gender

Group Statistics

Gender N Mean Std. DeviationStd. Error

MeanTotal score on Attitudes to Blind Person scale

Female 49 70.88 12.370 1.767

Male 53 66.81 12.672 1.741

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)Mean

DifferenceStd. Error Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower UpperTotal score on attitudes to blindness scale

Equal variances assumed .204 .652 1.638 100 .105 4.066 2.483 -.860 8.992

Equal variances not assumed 1.639 99.696 .104 4.066 2.480 -.855 8.988

One-way ANOVAs

One-way: age

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Total score on Attitudes towards Blind Persons scale

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

2.400 3 98 .072

ANOVA

Total score on Attitudes Towards Blind Persons scale

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 826.637 3 275.546 1.766 .159Within Groups 15289.716 98 156.018 Total 16116.353 101

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: Total score on Attitudes to Blind Persons scale Tukey HSD

(I) Age (J) Age

Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound<=39 40-49 -2.735 3.010 .800 -10.60 5.13

50-59 -1.483 3.483 .974 -10.59 7.62

60+ 6.494 4.042 .380 -4.07 17.0640-49 <=39 2.735 3.010 .800 -5.13 10.60

50-59 1.252 3.540 .985 -8.00 10.50

60+ 9.228 4.090 .116 -1.46 19.9250-59 <=39 1.483 3.483 .974 -7.62 10.59

40-49 -1.252 3.540 .985 -10.50 8.0060+ 7.977 4.450 .283 -3.65 19.61

60+ <=39 -6.494 4.042 .380 -17.06 4.0740-49 -9.228 4.090 .116 -19.92 1.4650-59 -7.977 4.450 .283 -19.61 3.65

Homogeneous Subsets

Total score on attitudes to blindness scale

Tukey HSD

Age N

Subset for alpha = .05

160+ 13 61.92<=39 36 68.4250-59 20 69.9040-49 33 71.15Sig. .078

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 21.621.b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

One-way: Education level

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Total score on Attitudes to Blind Persons scale Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

.321 4 89 .863

ANOVA

Total score on Attitudes to Blind Persons scale

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 1182.410 4 295.602 1.879 .121Within Groups 14002.026 89 157.326 Total 15184.436 93

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: Total score on Attitudes to Blind Persons scale

Tukey HSD

(I) Education (J) Education

Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper BoundNZ School Certificate NZ Higher School

Certificate or Higher Leaving Certificate

-3.283 6.795 .989 -22.20 15.64

NZ Sixth Form Certificate-12.283 5.750 .214 -28.29 3.73

NZ University Bursary or Entrance or Scholarship

-9.560 4.932 .305 -23.29 4.17

University qualification-6.417 3.141 .254 -15.16 2.33

NZ Higher School Certificate or Higher Leaving Certificate

NZ School Certificate3.283 6.795 .989 -15.64 22.20

NZ Sixth Form Certificate -9.000 8.096 .800 -31.54 13.54

NZ University Bursary or Entrance or Scholarship

-6.278 7.537 .920 -27.27 14.71

University qualification -3.135 6.508 .989 -21.26 14.99

NZ Sixth Form Certificate NZ School Certificate12.283 5.750 .214 -3.73 28.29

NZ Higher School Certificate or Higher Leaving Certificate

9.000 8.096 .800 -13.54 31.54

NZ University Bursary or Entrance or Scholarship

2.722 6.611 .994 -15.69 21.13

University qualification

5.865 5.408 .814 -9.19 20.92

NZ University Bursary or Entrance or Scholarship

NZ School Certificate 9.560 4.932 .305 -4.17 23.29NZ Higher School Certificate or Higher Leaving Certificate

6.278 7.537 .920 -14.71 27.27

NZ Sixth Form Certificate -2.722 6.611 .994 -21.13 15.69University qualification 3.143 4.528 .957 -9.47 15.75

University qualification NZ School Certificate6.417 3.141 .254 -2.33 15.16

NZ Higher School Certificate or Higher Leaving Certificate

3.135 6.508 .989 -14.99 21.26

NZ Sixth Form Certificate -5.865 5.408 .814 -20.92 9.19NZ University Bursary or Entrance or Scholarship -3.143 4.528 .957 -15.75 9.47

Homogeneous Subsets

Total score on Attitudes to Blind Persons scale

Tukey HSD

Education N

Subset for alpha = .05

1NZ School Certificate 23 63.22NZ Higher School Certificate or Higher Leaving Certificate

4 66.50

University qualification 52 69.63NZ University Bursary or Entrance or Scholarship 9 72.78

NZ Sixth Form Certificate 6 75.50Sig. .267

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 8.468.b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

One-way: Job categories

Descriptives

Employability of blind people

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper BoundManagers 4 2.00 1.414 .707 -.25 4.25 1 4Professionals 36 1.58 .770 .128 1.32 1.84 1 3Technicians & trade workers 50 1.36 .722 .102 1.15 1.57 1 4

Community & personal service workers 13 1.46 .660 .183 1.06 1.86 1 3

Clerical & administrative workers 26 1.73 1.041 .204 1.31 2.15 1 4

Sales workers 32 1.34 .653 .115 1.11 1.58 1 3Machinery operators & drivers 13 1.08 .277 .077 .91 1.24 1 2

Labourers 27 1.11 .320 .062 .98 1.24 1 2Total 201 1.41 .744 .052 1.31 1.52 1 4

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Employability of blind people

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

9.114 7 193 .000

ANOVA

Employability of blind people Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 9.302 7 1.329 2.529 .016Within Groups 101.425 193 .526 Total 110.726 200

Post Hoc TestsOne-way

Descriptives

Employability of blind people

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper BoundManagers 4 2.00 1.414 .707 -.25 4.25 1 4Professionals 36 1.58 .770 .128 1.32 1.84 1 3Technicians & trade workers 50 1.36 .722 .102 1.15 1.57 1 4

Community & personal service workers 13 1.46 .660 .183 1.06 1.86 1 3

Clerical & administrative workers 26 1.73 1.041 .204 1.31 2.15 1 4

Sales workers 32 1.34 .653 .115 1.11 1.58 1 3Machinery operators & drivers 13 1.08 .277 .077 .91 1.24 1 2

Labourers 27 1.11 .320 .062 .98 1.24 1 2Total 201 1.41 .744 .052 1.31 1.52 1 4

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Employability of blind people

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

9.114 7 193 .000

ANOVA

Employability of blind people

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 9.302 7 1.329 2.529 .016Within Groups 101.425 193 .526 Total 110.726 200

Post Hoc TestsMultiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: Employability of blind people Dennett T3

(I) Job category (J) Job category

Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper BoundManagers Professionals .417 .719 1.000 -4.32 5.15

Technicians & trade workers .640 .714 .997 -4.15 5.43

Community & personal service workers .538 .730 1.000 -4.06 5.13

Clerical & administrative workers .269 .736 1.000 -4.27 4.80

Sales workers.656 .716 .996 -4.10 5.42

Machinery operators & drivers

.923 .711 .948 -3.91 5.75

Labourers .889 .710 .957 -3.96 5.74Professionals Managers -.417 .719 1.000 -5.15 4.32 Technicians & trade

workers.223 .164 .992 -.31 .75

Community & personal service workers

.122 .224 1.000 -.65 .89

Clerical & administrative workers -.147 .241 1.000 -.94 .65

Sales workers.240 .173 .990 -.32 .80

Machinery operators & drivers .506(*) .150 .038 .01 1.00

Labourers .472(*) .142 .045 .01 .94

Technicians & trade workers

Managers-.640 .714 .997 -5.43 4.15

Professionals -.223 .164 .992 -.75 .31Community & personal service workers

-.102 .210 1.000 -.84 .64

Clerical & administrative workers

-.371 .228 .935 -1.13 .39

Sales workers .016 .154 1.000 -.48 .51Machinery operators & drivers .283 .128 .546 -.14 .70

Labourers .249 .119 .651 -.14 .63Community & personal service workers

Managers -.538 .730 1.000 -5.13 4.06Professionals

-.122 .224 1.000 -.89 .65

Technicians & trade workers

.102 .210 1.000 -.64 .84

Clerical & administrative workers

-.269 .274 1.000 -1.19 .65

Sales workers .118 .216 1.000 -.64 .87Machinery operators & drivers .385 .199 .751 -.34 1.11

Labourers .350 .193 .822 -.36 1.06Clerical & administrative workers

Managers-.269 .736 1.000 -4.80 4.27

Professionals .147 .241 1.000 -.65 .94Technicians & trade workers .371 .228 .935 -.39 1.13

Community & personal service workers

.269 .274 1.000 -.65 1.19

Sales workers .387 .235 .926 -.39 1.17Machinery operators & drivers

.654 .218 .126 -.08 1.39

Labourers.620 .213 .158 -.10 1.34

Sales workers Managers -.656 .716 .996 -5.42 4.10

Professionals -.240 .173 .990 -.80 .32 Technicians & trade

workers-.016 .154 1.000 -.51 .48

Community & personal service workers -.118 .216 1.000 -.87 .64

Clerical & administrative workers

-.387 .235 .926 -1.17 .39

Machinery operators & drivers

.267 .139 .776 -.19 .73

Labourers .233 .131 .869 -.20 .66Machinery operators & drivers

Managers -.923 .711 .948 -5.75 3.91

Professionals -.506(*) .150 .038 -1.00 -.01

Technicians & trade workers -.283 .128 .546 -.70 .14

Community & personal service workers

-.385 .199 .751 -1.11 .34

Clerical & administrative workers -.654 .218 .126 -1.39 .08

Sales workers -.267 .139 .776 -.73 .19Labourers -.034 .099 1.000 -.37 .30

Labourers Managers -.889 .710 .957 -5.74 3.96Professionals -.472(*) .142 .045 -.94 -.01

Technicians & trade workers -.249 .119 .651 -.63 .14

Community & personal service workers -.350 .193 .822 -1.06 .36

Clerical & administrative workers

-.620 .213 .158 -1.34 .10

Sales workers -.233 .131 .869 -.66 .20Machinery operators & drivers

.034 .099 1.000 -.30 .37

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

One-way: blindness vs. the others

Descriptives

Mean disability score

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper BoundBlindness (visually impaired) 102 1.422 .6477 .0641 1.294 1.549 1.0 4.0

Mild intellectual handicap 101 2.178 1.0784 .1073 1.965 2.391 1.0 5.0Moderate/severe intellectual handicap 102 1.382 .6936 .0687 1.246 1.519 1.0 5.0

Deaf/Hard of hearing 102 2.686 1.1300 .1119 2.464 2.908 1.0 5.0Mobility (wheelchair) 102 2.211 1.2982 .1285 1.956 2.466 1.0 5.0Back limitation 101 2.792 1.1603 .1155 2.563 3.021 1.0 5.0Arthritis 100 3.085 1.1148 .1115 2.864 3.306 1.0 5.0Mental illness 98 2.230 1.0605 .1071 2.017 2.442 1.0 5.0Emotional illness 98 2.633 1.0996 .1111 2.412 2.853 1.0 5.0Brain injury 102 1.877 .8828 .0874 1.704 2.051 1.0 5.0Heart disease 101 3.609 1.1992 .1193 3.372 3.846 1.0 5.0Respiratory disease 100 3.430 1.2082 .1208 3.190 3.670 1.0 5.0Cancer 97 3.840 1.2066 .1225 3.597 4.083 1.0 5.0HIV positive 99 3.727 1.3670 .1374 3.455 4.000 1.0 5.0Total 1405 2.643 1.3465 .0359 2.572 2.713 1.0 5.0

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Mean disability score

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

10.994 13 1391 .000

ANOVA

Mean disability score

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 865.245 13 66.557 55.095 .000Within Groups 1680.392 1391 1.208 Total 2545.638 1404

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: Mean disability score

Dennett t (2-sided)

(I) Disability type (J) Disability typeMean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Mild intellectual handicap Blindness (visually impaired) .7566(*) .1543 .000 .325 1.188Moderate/severe intellectual handicap

Blindness (visually impaired)-.0392 .1539 1.000 -.469 .391

Deaf/Hard of Hearing Blindness (visually impaired) 1.2647(*) .1539 .000 .834 1.695Mobility (wheelchair) Blindness (visually impaired) .7892(*) .1539 .000 .359 1.219

Back limitation Blindness (visually impaired) 1.3705(*) .1543 .000 .939 1.802

Arthritis Blindness (visually impaired) 1.6634(*) .1547 .000 1.231 2.096

Mental illness Blindness (visually impaired) .8080(*) .1555 .000 .373 1.243

Emotional illness Blindness (visually impaired) 1.2111(*) .1555 .000 .776 1.646

Brain injury Blindness (visually impaired) .4559(*) .1539 .031 .026 .886

Heart disease Blindness (visually impaired) 2.1873(*) .1543 .000 1.756 2.619

Respiratory disease Blindness (visually impaired) 2.0084(*) .1547 .000 1.576 2.441

Cancer Blindness (visually impaired) 2.4186(*) .1559 .000 1.983 2.854

HIV positive Blindness (visually impaired) 2.3057(*) .1551 .000 1.872 2.739

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.a Dennett t-test treats one group as a control, and compares all other groups against it.

One-way

Descriptives

Mean disability score

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum MaximumLower Bound Upper BoundBlindness (visually impaired) 102 1.422 .6477 .0641 1.294 1.549 1.0 4.0

Mild intellectual handicap 101 2.178 1.0784 .1073 1.965 2.391 1.0 5.0Moderate/severe intellectual handicap 102 1.382 .6936 .0687 1.246 1.519 1.0 5.0

Deaf/Hard of Hearing 102 2.686 1.1300 .1119 2.464 2.908 1.0 5.0Mobility (wheelchair) 102 2.211 1.2982 .1285 1.956 2.466 1.0 5.0Back limitation 101 2.792 1.1603 .1155 2.563 3.021 1.0 5.0Arthritis 100 3.085 1.1148 .1115 2.864 3.306 1.0 5.0Mental illness 98 2.230 1.0605 .1071 2.017 2.442 1.0 5.0Emotional illness 98 2.633 1.0996 .1111 2.412 2.853 1.0 5.0Brain injury 102 1.877 .8828 .0874 1.704 2.051 1.0 5.0Heart disease 101 3.609 1.1992 .1193 3.372 3.846 1.0 5.0Respiratory disease 100 3.430 1.2082 .1208 3.190 3.670 1.0 5.0Cancer 97 3.840 1.2066 .1225 3.597 4.083 1.0 5.0HIV positive 99 3.727 1.3670 .1374 3.455 4.000 1.0 5.0Total 1405 2.643 1.3465 .0359 2.572 2.713 1.0 5.0

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Mean disability score

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

10.994 13 1391 .000

ANOVA

Mean disability score

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 865.245 13 66.557 55.095 .000Within Groups 1680.392 1391 1.208 Total 2545.638 1404

Post Hoc TestsMultiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: Mean disability score Dennett T3

(I) Disability type (J) Disability type

Mean Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper BoundBlindness (visually impaired)

Mild intellectual handicap -.7566(*) .1250 .000 -1.196 -.317Moderate/severe intellectual handicap

.0392 .0940 1.000 -.290 .368

Deaf/Hard of Hearing-1.2647(*) .1290 .000 -1.718 -.811

Mobility (wheelchair) -.7892(*) .1437 .000 -1.295 -.284

Back limitation -1.3705(*) .1321 .000 -1.835 -.906

Arthritis -1.6634(*) .1286 .000 -2.116 -1.211

Mental illness -.8080(*) .1249 .000 -1.247 -.369

Emotional illness -1.2111(*) .1283 .000 -1.662 -.760

Brain injury -.4559(*) .1084 .004 -.836 -.076

Heart disease -2.1873(*) .1355 .000 -2.664 -1.711

Respiratory disease -2.0084(*) .1368 .000 -2.490 -1.527

Cancer -2.4186(*) .1383 .000 -2.906 -1.932

HIV positive -2.3057(*) .1516 .000 -2.840 -1.771Mild intellectual handicap Blindness (visually

impaired).7566(*) .1250 .000 .317 1.196

Moderate/severe intellectual handicap .7959(*) .1274 .000 .349 1.243

Deaf/Hard of Hearing -.5081 .1550 .104 -1.051 .035Mobility (wheelchair)

-.0326 .1674 1.000 -.619 .554

Back limitation -.6139(*) .1576 .012 -1.166 -.062Arthritis -.9068(*) .1547 .000 -1.449 -.365Mental illness -.0514 .1516 1.000 -.582 .480Emotional illness -.4544 .1544 .274 -.995 .086Brain injury .3008 .1384 .925 -.184 .786Heart disease -1.4307(*) .1605 .000 -1.993 -.869Respiratory disease -1.2518(*) .1616 .000 -1.818 -.686Cancer -1.6620(*) .1629 .000 -2.233 -1.091HIV positive -1.5491(*) .1743 .000 -2.160 -.938

Moderate/severe intellectual handicap

Blindness (visually impaired)

-.0392 .0940 1.000 -.368 .290

Mild intellectual handicap -.7959(*) .1274 .000 -1.243 -.349Deaf/Hard of Hearing

-1.3039(*) .1313 .000 -1.765 -.843

Mobility (wheelchair) -.8284(*) .1457 .000 -1.341 -.316Back limitation -1.4097(*) .1343 .000 -1.882 -.938Arthritis -1.7026(*) .1309 .000 -2.163 -1.243Mental illness -.8472(*) .1272 .000 -1.294 -.400Emotional illness -1.2503(*) .1306 .000 -1.709 -.791Brain injury -.4951(*) .1112 .001 -.885 -.106Heart disease -2.2266(*) .1377 .000 -2.710 -1.743Respiratory disease -2.0476(*) .1390 .000 -2.536 -1.559Cancer -2.4579(*) .1405 .000 -2.952 -1.964HIV positive -2.3449(*) .1536 .000 -2.886 -1.804

Deaf/Hard of Hearing Blindness (visually impaired)

1.2647(*) .1290 .000 .811 1.718

Mild intellectual handicap .5081 .1550 .104 -.035 1.051Moderate/severe intellectual handicap

1.3039(*) .1313 .000 .843 1.765

Mobility (wheelchair).4755 .1704 .396 -.121 1.072

Back limitation -.1058 .1608 1.000 -.669 .457Arthritis -.3987 .1579 .653 -.952 .154Mental illness .4567 .1549 .270 -.086 .999Emotional illness .0536 .1577 1.000 -.499 .606Brain injury .8088(*) .1420 .000 .311 1.306Heart disease -.9226(*) .1636 .000 -1.495 -.350Respiratory disease -.7437(*) .1647 .001 -1.320 -.167Cancer -1.1539(*) .1659 .000 -1.735 -.573HIV positive -1.0410(*) .1772 .000 -1.662 -.420

Mobility (wheelchair) Blindness (visually impaired)

.7892(*) .1437 .000 .284 1.295

Mild intellectual handicap .0326 .1674 1.000 -.554 .619Moderate/severe intellectual handicap

.8284(*) .1457 .000 .316 1.341

Deaf/Hard of Hearing -.4755 .1704 .396 -1.072 .121Back limitation -.5813 .1728 .079 -1.186 .024Arthritis -.8742(*) .1701 .000 -1.470 -.278Mental illness -.0188 .1673 1.000 -.605 .567

Emotional illness -.4219 .1699 .693 -1.017 .173Brain injury .3333 .1554 .937 -.212 .879Heart disease -1.3981(*) .1754 .000 -2.012 -.784Respiratory disease -1.2192(*) .1764 .000 -1.837 -.601Cancer -1.6294(*) .1776 .000 -2.251 -1.007HIV positive -1.5165(*) .1881 .000 -2.175 -.858

Back limitation Blindness (visually impaired)

1.3705(*) .1321 .000 .906 1.835

Mild intellectual handicap .6139(*) .1576 .012 .062 1.166Moderate/severe intellectual handicap

1.4097(*) .1343 .000 .938 1.882

Deaf/Hard of Hearing .1058 .1608 1.000 -.457 .669Mobility (wheelchair) .5813 .1728 .079 -.024 1.186Arthritis -.2929 .1605 .997 -.855 .269Mental illness .5625(*) .1575 .039 .011 1.114Emotional illness .1594 .1602 1.000 -.402 .721

Brain injury .9146(*) .1448 .000 .407 1.422Heart disease -.8168(*) .1660 .000 -1.398 -.235Respiratory disease -.6379(*) .1671 .016 -1.223 -.053Cancer -1.0481(*) .1683 .000 -1.638 -.458HIV positive -.9352(*) .1795 .000 -1.564 -.306

Arthritis Blindness (visually impaired)

1.6634(*) .1286 .000 1.211 2.116

Mild intellectual handicap .9068(*) .1547 .000 .365 1.449Moderate/severe intellectual handicap

1.7026(*) .1309 .000 1.243 2.163

Deaf/Hard of Hearing .3987 .1579 .653 -.154 .952Mobility (wheelchair) .8742(*) .1701 .000 .278 1.470Back limitation .2929 .1605 .997 -.269 .855Mental illness .8554(*) .1546 .000 .314 1.397Emotional illness .4523 .1574 .325 -.099 1.004Brain injury 1.2075(*) .1417 .000 .711 1.704Heart disease -.5239 .1633 .129 -1.096 .048Respiratory disease -.3450 .1644 .955 -.921 .231Cancer -.7552(*) .1656 .001 -1.336 -.175HIV positive -.6423(*) .1769 .032 -1.262 -.022

Mental illness Blindness (visually impaired)

.8080(*) .1249 .000 .369 1.247

Mild intellectual handicap .0514 .1516 1.000 -.480 .582Moderate/severe intellectual handicap

.8472(*) .1272 .000 .400 1.294

Deaf/Hard of Hearing -.4567 .1549 .270 -.999 .086Mobility (wheelchair) .0188 .1673 1.000 -.567 .605

Back limitation -.5625(*) .1575 .039 -1.114 -.011Arthritis -.8554(*) .1546 .000 -1.397 -.314Emotional illness -.4031 .1543 .566 -.944 .138Brain injury .3521 .1383 .631 -.132 .837Heart disease -1.3793(*) .1604 .000 -1.941 -.818Respiratory disease -1.2004(*) .1615 .000 -1.766 -.635Cancer -1.6106(*) .1627 .000 -2.181 -1.040HIV positive -1.4977(*) .1742 .000 -2.109 -.887

Emotional illness Blindness (visually impaired)

1.2111(*) .1283 .000 .760 1.662

Mild intellectual handicap .4544 .1544 .274 -.086 .995Moderate/severe intellectual handicap

1.2503(*) .1306 .000 .791 1.709

Deaf/Hard of Hearing -.0536 .1577 1.000 -.606 .499Mobility (wheelchair) .4219 .1699 .693 -.173 1.017Back limitation -.1594 .1602 1.000 -.721 .402Arthritis -.4523 .1574 .325 -1.004 .099Mental illness .4031 .1543 .566 -.138 .944Brain injury .7552(*) .1413 .000 .260 1.251

Heart disease -.9763(*) .1630 .000 -1.547 -.405Respiratory disease -.7973(*) .1641 .000 -1.372 -.222Cancer -1.2076(*) .1654 .000 -1.787 -.628HIV positive -1.0946(*) .1767 .000 -1.714 -.475

Brain injury Blindness (visually impaired)

.4559(*) .1084 .004 .076 .836

Mild intellectual handicap -.3008 .1384 .925 -.786 .184Moderate/severe intellectual handicap

.4951(*) .1112 .001 .106 .885

Deaf/Hard of Hearing -.8088(*) .1420 .000 -1.306 -.311Mobility (wheelchair) -.3333 .1554 .937 -.879 .212Back limitation -.9146(*) .1448 .000 -1.422 -.407Arthritis -1.2075(*) .1417 .000 -1.704 -.711Mental illness -.3521 .1383 .631 -.837 .132

Emotional illness -.7552(*) .1413 .000 -1.251 -.260Heart disease -1.7315(*) .1479 .000 -2.250 -1.213Respiratory disease -1.5525(*) .1491 .000 -2.076 -1.030Cancer -1.9628(*) .1505 .000 -2.491 -1.435HIV positive -1.8498(*) .1628 .000 -2.422 -1.278

Heart disease Blindness (visually impaired)

2.1873(*) .1355 .000 1.711 2.664

Mild intellectual handicap 1.4307(*) .1605 .000 .869 1.993Moderate/severe intellectual handicap

2.2266(*) .1377 .000 1.743 2.710

Deaf/Hard of Hearing .9226(*) .1636 .000 .350 1.495Mobility (wheelchair) 1.3981(*) .1754 .000 .784 2.012Back limitation .8168(*) .1660 .000 .235 1.398Arthritis .5239 .1633 .129 -.048 1.096Mental illness 1.3793(*) .1604 .000 .818 1.941Emotional illness .9763(*) .1630 .000 .405 1.547Brain injury 1.7315(*) .1479 .000 1.213 2.250Respiratory disease .1789 .1698 1.000 -.416 .774

Cancer -.2313 .1710 1.000 -.830 .368HIV positive -.1184 .1820 1.000 -.756 .519

Respiratory disease Blindness (visually impaired)

2.0084(*) .1368 .000 1.527 2.490

Mild intellectual handicap 1.2518(*) .1616 .000 .686 1.818Moderate/severe intellectual handicap

2.0476(*) .1390 .000 1.559 2.536

Deaf/Hard of Hearing .7437(*) .1647 .001 .167 1.320Mobility (wheelchair) 1.2192(*) .1764 .000 .601 1.837Back limitation .6379(*) .1671 .016 .053 1.223Arthritis .3450 .1644 .955 -.231 .921Mental illness 1.2004(*) .1615 .000 .635 1.766Emotional illness .7973(*) .1641 .000 .222 1.372Brain injury 1.5525(*) .1491 .000 1.030 2.076Heart disease -.1789 .1698 1.000 -.774 .416

Cancer -.4102 .1721 .784 -1.013 .193HIV positive -.2973 .1830 1.000 -.938 .344

Cancer Blindness (visually impaired) 2.4186(*) .1383 .000 1.932 2.906

Mild intellectual handicap 1.6620(*) .1629 .000 1.091 2.233Moderate/severe intellectual handicap

2.4579(*) .1405 .000 1.964 2.952

Deaf/Hard of Hearing 1.1539(*) .1659 .000 .573 1.735Mobility (wheelchair) 1.6294(*) .1776 .000 1.007 2.251Back limitation 1.0481(*) .1683 .000 .458 1.638Arthritis .7552(*) .1656 .001 .175 1.336Mental illness 1.6106(*) .1627 .000 1.040 2.181Emotional illness 1.2076(*) .1654 .000 .628 1.787Brain injury 1.9628(*) .1505 .000 1.435 2.491Heart disease .2313 .1710 1.000 -.368 .830Respiratory disease .4102 .1721 .784 -.193 1.013HIV positive .1129 .1841 1.000 -.532 .758

HIV positive Blindness (visually impaired)

2.3057(*) .1516 .000 1.771 2.840

Mild intellectual handicap 1.5491(*) .1743 .000 .938 2.160Moderate/severe intellectual handicap

2.3449(*) .1536 .000 1.804 2.886

Deaf/Hard of Hearing 1.0410(*) .1772 .000 .420 1.662Mobility (wheelchair) 1.5165(*) .1881 .000 .858 2.175Back limitation .9352(*) .1795 .000 .306 1.564Arthritis .6423(*) .1769 .032 .022 1.262Mental illness 1.4977(*) .1742 .000 .887 2.109Emotional illness 1.0946(*) .1767 .000 .475 1.714Brain injury 1.8498(*) .1628 .000 1.278 2.422Heart disease .1184 .1820 1.000 -.519 .756Respiratory disease .2973 .1830 1.000 -.344 .938Cancer -.1129 .1841 1.000 -.758 .532

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

T-TestPaired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error MeanPair 1 Mild IH 2.27 100 1.238 .124

Mild IH 2.07 100 1.157 .116Pair 2 Mod/sev IH 1.36 101 .715 .071

Mod/sev IH 1.40 101 .776 .077Pair 3 Blind 1.37 99 .723 .073

Blind 1.43 99 .758 .076Pair 4 Deaf 2.69 101 1.286 .128

Deaf 2.65 101 1.268 .126

Pair 5 Mobility 2.13 101 1.433 .143

Mobility 2.24 101 1.429 .142

Pair 6 Back 2.71 101 1.329 .132

Back 2.87 101 1.332 .133Pair 7 Arthritis 3.01 99 1.274 .128

Arthritis 3.14 99 1.178 .118

Pair 8 Mental illness 2.22 90 1.109 .117

Mental illness 2.21 90 1.156 .122Pair 9 Emotional illness 2.67 93 1.145 .119

Emotional illness 2.60 93 1.143 .119

Pair 10 Brain Injury 1.87 102 .951 .094

Brain Injury 1.88 102 1.027 .102

Pair 11 Heart disease 3.56 101 1.322 .132

Heart disease 3.65 101 1.212 .121

Pair 12 Respiratory disease 3.34 100 1.304 .130

Respiratory disease 3.52 100 1.306 .131

Pair 13 Cancer 3.82 95 1.229 .126

Cancer 3.94 95 1.201 .123

Pair 14 HIV positive 3.77 95 1.440 .148

HIV positive 3.77 95 1.356 .139

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.Pair 1 Mild IH & Mild IH 100 .628 .000Pair 2 Mod/sev IH & Mod/sev IH 101 .734 .000Pair 3 Blind & Blind 99 .464 .000Pair 4 Deaf & Deaf 101 .559 .000Pair 5 Mobility & Mobility 101 .585 .000Pair 6 Back & Back 101 .521 .000Pair 7 Arthritis & Arthritis 99 .659 .000Pair 8 Mental illness & Mental

illness 90 .839 .000

Pair 9 Emotional illness & Emotional illness 93 .860 .000

Pair 10 Brain Injury & Brain Injury 102 .593 .000Pair 11 Heart disease & Heart

disease 101 .791 .000

Pair 12 Respiratory disease & Respiratory disease 100 .713 .000

Pair 13 Cancer & Cancer 95 .886 .000Pair 14 HIV positive & HIV positive 95 .877 .000

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences

t df Sig. (2-tailed)Mean Std. DeviationStd. Error

Mean

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower UpperPair 1 Mild IH - Mild IH .200 1.035 .103 -.005 .405 1.933 99 .056Pair 2 Mod/sev IH - Mod/sev IH -.040 .546 .054 -.147 .068 -.729 100 .468Pair 3 Blind - Blind -.061 .767 .077 -.214 .092 -.786 98 .434Pair 4 Deaf - Deaf .040 1.199 .119 -.197 .276 .332 100 .741Pair 5 Mobility - Mobility -.109 1.303 .130 -.366 .148 -.840 100 .403Pair 6 Back - Back -.158 1.302 .130 -.415 .099 -1.223 100 .224Pair 7 Arthritis - Arthritis -.131 1.017 .102 -.334 .071 -1.285 98 .202Pair 8 Mental illness - Mental

illness .011 .645 .068 -.124 .146 .164 89 .870

Pair 9 Emotional illness - Emotional illness .065 .604 .063 -.060 .189 1.029 92 .306

Pair 10 Brain Injury - Brain Injury -.010 .895 .089 -.186 .166 -.111 101 .912Pair 11 Heart disease - Heart

disease -.089 .826 .082 -.252 .074 -1.084 100 .281

Pair 12 Respiratory disease - Respiratory disease -.180 .989 .099 -.376 .016 -1.821 99 .072

Pair 13 Cancer - Cancer -.116 .581 .060 -.234 .003 -1.943 94 .055Pair 14 HIV positive - HIV positive .000 .700 .072 -.143 .143 .000 94 1.000

Reliability

Scale: ALL VARIABLES – Reliability of the ATBP scale

Case Processing Summary

N %Cases Valid 102 51.0 Excluded(a) 98 49.0 Total 200 100.0

a Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based on

Standardized Items N of Items

.840 .849 16

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

V46 V47 V48 V49 V50 V51 V52 V53 V54 V55 V56 V57 V58 V59 V60 V61V46 1.000 .526 .390 .304 .213 .302 .346 .180 .357 .447 .209 .246 .272 .311 .256 .244V47 .526 1.000 .475 .242 .198 .222 .142 .149 .386 .342 .113 .158 .318 .244 .233 .146V48 .390 .475 1.000 .271 .142 .125 .073 .214 .381 .375 .131 .159 .134 .105 .177 .121V49 .304 .242 .271 1.000 .101 .243 .124 .326 .161 .084 .084 .071 .154 .255 .124 .159V50 .213 .198 .142 .101 1.000 .512 .491 .236 .363 .305 .343 .090 .052 .145 .239 .370V51 .302 .222 .125 .243 .512 1.000 .769 .392 .311 .302 .467 .218 .186 .202 .463 .494V52 .346 .142 .073 .124 .491 .769 1.000 .297 .216 .357 .571 .191 .182 .232 .445 .695V53 .180 .149 .214 .326 .236 .392 .297 1.000 .090 .160 .180 .265 .026 .060 .235 .236V54 .357 .386 .381 .161 .363 .311 .216 .090 1.000 .443 .115 .116 .271 .150 .296 .226V55 .447 .342 .375 .084 .305 .302 .357 .160 .443 1.000 .291 .318 .382 .269 .211 .295V56 .209 .113 .131 .084 .343 .467 .571 .180 .115 .291 1.000 .133 .190 .391 .361 .597V57 .246 .158 .159 .071 .090 .218 .191 .265 .116 .318 .133 1.000 .074 .087 .212 .036V58 .272 .318 .134 .154 .052 .186 .182 .026 .271 .382 .190 .074 1.000 .394 .230 .223V59 .311 .244 .105 .255 .145 .202 .232 .060 .150 .269 .391 .087 .394 1.000 .215 .367V60 .256 .233 .177 .124 .239 .463 .445 .235 .296 .211 .361 .212 .230 .215 1.000 .607V61 .244 .146 .121 .159 .370 .494 .695 .236 .226 .295 .597 .036 .223 .367 .607 1.000

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item

DeletedV46 65.48 133.935 .582 .457 .822V47 65.53 137.242 .499 .422 .828V48 65.91 139.705 .418 .375 .833V49 64.38 145.842 .328 .271 .838V50 64.11 144.394 .434 .373 .832V51 63.46 144.805 .605 .698 .827V52 63.70 140.669 .575 .774 .825V53 63.87 146.627 .345 .282 .836V54 65.34 137.535 .479 .392 .829V55 65.02 134.475 .571 .462 .823V56 63.71 144.665 .474 .471 .830V57 64.55 147.102 .283 .234 .840V58 64.49 144.391 .385 .306 .834V59 64.55 139.557 .405 .350 .835V60 63.83 143.388 .495 .486 .829V61 63.54 143.597 .550 .698 .827

Scale Statistics

Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items

68.76 159.568 12.632 16